[core-workflow] Questions about the proposed workflows

[R. David Murray]

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:03:57 -0500, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2015, at 08:48 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> 
> >What that comment would do is trigger a bot
> 
> As long as we a clear, responsive owner of the bot, and a plan for when it
> inevitably dies or does the wrong thing.  If the bot is going to be in the
> critical loop, we can't allow its failure to block our work.

Well, the bot being down won't *block* anything, it will just remove the
level of added convenience we are looking for (ie: you can always fall
back to manual commit/push).  Likewise, mistakes will probably have
to be cleaned up manually, and we might have to shut it off until
the bug gets fixed in that situation.

That said, we really don't want the bot to have only a single
maintainer, though it may initially have a single author, and ideally
operations would be responsible for keeping it running.

There are a number of advantages to having a bot be the way this works
rather than depending on features of the provider's software, easier
integration with other tools (ie: the tracker) being a big one.
It would also presumably make switching providers somewhat easier.

--David