[core-workflow] bugs.python.org-related GSoC project

[Nick Coghlan]

On 13 March 2015 at 22:08, Brett Cannon <bcannon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Another idea would be dropping Rietveld for some other code review tool.
> Guido has mentioned we should probably switch off since our copy of Rietveld
> no longer tracks upstream.

That's probably not a good idea, given that both PEP 474 and PEP 481
suggest introducing new code review capable services as
forge.python.org (Kallithea and Phabricator respectively) so
regardless of how that competition turns out, there'll be a potential
replacement for Rietveld incoming.

Since both those PEPs suggest leaving the main CPython workflow alone
for the time being, and there's nothing actually *broken* with the
Rietveld integration, it could be worth pursuing some of the simpler
changers Ezio suggested, like pinging the tracker when a review is
filed, trying harder to find a base branch, or (one we discussed on
IRC) better defining a workflow for generating patches directly from a
BitBucket Mercurial clone could still be worthwhile.

Sure, we're likely to stop using Rietveld in favour of the winner of
the forge.python.org analysis at some point in the future, but that
point is likely to be quite some time away where CPython is concerned.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia