On 7 July 2015 at 22:31, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:

A simple way to address this would have been to CC Raymond on the issue. But the reply-to header probably makes that hard. Agreed that post-commit reviews don't really scale to our size. It's hard to teach old dogs new tricks though. I now realize that my main point, however, was that Raymond and Serhiy might have sorted this out offline already without either of them bothering to CC python-dev on the fix, so perhaps the discussion about our broken process might well have been premature. Certainly I don't think automatically rolling back commits is something we should start to do without a bigger overhaul of our process -- which takes time and may well already be underway.

Only sort of - the three principals (myself, Donald Stufft, Brett Cannon) have all had quite a few other things on our plates in the last few months, so the forge.python.org proposals haven't progressed beyond where they were at the Language Summit in April :( It did occur to me that we could potentially get the moral equivalent of a "gated trunk" *without* disrupting current commit workflows by introducing a separate "cpython-ci" repo that was only updated after the BuildBots gave a commit a clean bill of health. That would also provide a better basis for other folks to do CI against, since they'd know the commit was at least passing our own test suite before they tried it. It would mean yet another piece of workflow infrastructure to set up and maintain, though :( Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia