[python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

[Nick Coghlan]

On 2 May 2017 at 08:32, Christian Heimes <christian at python.org> wrote:
> This brings me to my questions
>
> 1) Should we try to move discussion back to BPO or are we fine with
> having major decisions just in Github PRs?
>
> 2) How can we retain enough information on BPO to keep it useful as
> research database for past decisions?

It's OK to have the discussions on GitHub, but one of the
responsibilities of reviewers is to ensure that significant design
decisions are summarised on the related tracker issue for future
reference.

If GitHub looks like it is at risk of disappearing as a public
historical archive at some point in the future (or if the problem
bothers someone enough in the meantime for them to spend time on
addressing it), then it should be possible to use
https://www.githubarchive.org/ to maintain a full streaming mirror of
a GitHub repository in a self-hosted GitLab instance.

> 3) How can we keep module maintainers and experts in the loop? For
> example I don't have the resources to read all Github PRs, but I still
> like to keep an eye on the ssl and hashlib module.

As Donald describes, mention-bot should be able to handle this (and
more reliably than the nosy list on BPO, since it's based on the
actual files touched by a PR).

Cheers,
Nick.

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