Appending a link back to bugs.python.org in GitHub PRs
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e87f3/e87f3c7c6d92519a9dac18ec14406dd41e3da93d" alt=""
Thanks to Kushal Das we now have one of the most requested features since the transition: a link in PRs back to bugs.python.org (in a more discoverable way since we have had them since Bedevere launched :) . When a pull request comes in with an issue number in the title (or one gets added), a link to bugs.python.org will be appended to the PR's body (the message you fill out when creating a PR). There's no logic to remove the link if the issue number is removed from the title, changed, or for multiple issue numbers since basically those cases are all rare and it was easier to launch without that kind of support. P.S.: Berker Peksag is working on providing commit emails with diffs in them which is the other most requested feature since the transition.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/02af2/02af2732e96c914bc16a2e2ab9977d1cbf6c2ea0" alt=""
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
P.S.: Berker Peksag is working on providing commit emails with diffs in them which is the other most requested feature since the transition.
I forgot to give a status update on this. I deployed it on Heroku last week. You can see an example email at https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-checkins/2017-July/151296.html --Berker
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b3a1b/b3a1b07a6af97e2dafea238ab1cf396abba51b63" alt=""
With the linking back and forth, I'm curious why there wasn't a switch to use GitHub's issue tracker when we switched to GitHub. I'm sure there was previous discussion about this and good reasons not to, but couldn't find those quickly (PEP 512, Google search, etc) -- can someone point me in the right direction? -Ben On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eac55/eac5591fe952105aa6b0a522d87a8e612b813b5f" alt=""
On 26 July 2017 at 02:21, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
And unlike repository management and review management, we don't have any major process bottlenecks specifically related to bugs.python.org, and Github's issue tracker is merely "good enough if you don't otherwise have an issue tracker" rather than being exemplary the way their repository and review management are. So given the volume of incoming references to the current issue URLs, the potential for increased lock-in to a proprietary service provider with non-public finances, the difficulty of actually doing such a migration, and the questionable practical benefits, "Integrate Roundup with GitHub" was the default winner over doing a second data migration. The idea of moving tracker development *itself* to GitHub (and hence getting to dispense with the metatracker in favour of a GitHub repo with issues enabled) *has* been raised, and may be worth considering, but that would be up to the folks that actually do the bulk of the work on tracker maintenance (Berker, Ezio, Maciej, etc) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/02af2/02af2732e96c914bc16a2e2ab9977d1cbf6c2ea0" alt=""
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
P.S.: Berker Peksag is working on providing commit emails with diffs in them which is the other most requested feature since the transition.
I forgot to give a status update on this. I deployed it on Heroku last week. You can see an example email at https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-checkins/2017-July/151296.html --Berker
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b3a1b/b3a1b07a6af97e2dafea238ab1cf396abba51b63" alt=""
With the linking back and forth, I'm curious why there wasn't a switch to use GitHub's issue tracker when we switched to GitHub. I'm sure there was previous discussion about this and good reasons not to, but couldn't find those quickly (PEP 512, Google search, etc) -- can someone point me in the right direction? -Ben On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eac55/eac5591fe952105aa6b0a522d87a8e612b813b5f" alt=""
On 26 July 2017 at 02:21, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
And unlike repository management and review management, we don't have any major process bottlenecks specifically related to bugs.python.org, and Github's issue tracker is merely "good enough if you don't otherwise have an issue tracker" rather than being exemplary the way their repository and review management are. So given the volume of incoming references to the current issue URLs, the potential for increased lock-in to a proprietary service provider with non-public finances, the difficulty of actually doing such a migration, and the questionable practical benefits, "Integrate Roundup with GitHub" was the default winner over doing a second data migration. The idea of moving tracker development *itself* to GitHub (and hence getting to dispense with the metatracker in favour of a GitHub repo with issues enabled) *has* been raised, and may be worth considering, but that would be up to the folks that actually do the bulk of the work on tracker maintenance (Berker, Ezio, Maciej, etc) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
participants (5)
-
Ben Hoyt
-
Berker Peksağ
-
Brett Cannon
-
Mariatta Wijaya
-
Nick Coghlan