Hi Nick, On 02/01/2015 08:46 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: [...]
The updates to PEP 462, which covers proposed changes to the main CPython workflow, were more significant, as I've now rewritten that to depend on PEP 474, and propose replacing the current Rietveld patch review workflow with an updated approach based on Kallithea and Zuul: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0462/
A small question on: """ Push races would also be a thing of the past - if lots of core developers are approving patches at a sprint, then that just means the queue gets deeper in Zuul, rather than developers getting frustrated trying to merge changes and failing. """ How does the Tool Zuul resolve the case where the patches are not fully compatible. E.g. they touch the same file and some manually merging is needed? (Isn't that a push race? or I'm missing something?) And one minor detail. Early on "Current Tools": """ This proposal suggests replacing the use of Rietveld for code review with the more full-featured Kallithea-based forge.python.org service proposed in PEP 474 . """ and then later on "Perceived Benefits": """ the merge queue would allow that developer to focus more of their time on reviewing patches and helping the other contributors at the sprint, since accepting a patch for inclusion would now be a single click in the Rietveld UI, rather [...] """ Isn't "Kallithea UI" meant here? And +1 for self-hosting on: """ This proposal respects that history by recommending only tools that are available for self-hosting as sponsored or PSF funded infrastructure, and are also open source Python projects that can be customised to meet the needs of the CPython core development team """ I like the PEP. PS: Should this be forwarded to python-workflow or is that other list to be considered obsolete? Regards, francis