From rdmurray at bitdance.com  Tue Oct  3 16:13:36 2017
From: rdmurray at bitdance.com (R. David Murray)
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 16:13:36 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Minor followup to the pynvm discussion
Message-ID: <20171003201337.26D3C1B10002@webabinitio.net>

A link to a possibly-interesting-in-this-context project was just posted
to the pmem mailing list:

    https://arrow.apache.org/

This is a standard for communicating data structures between processes
with zero-copy semantics, and is backed by the person who created Python
Pandas.  I thought Davin in particular might find this interesting if
he isn't already aware of it.

--David

From nad at python.org  Tue Oct  3 16:06:44 2017
From: nad at python.org (Ned Deily)
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 16:06:44 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] [RELEASE] Python 3.6.3 is now available
Message-ID: <3D8F5841-F970-4C00-9A49-B4F8FD24CF79@python.org>

On behalf of the Python development community and the Python 3.6
release team, I am happy to announce the availability of Python 3.6.3,
the third maintenance release of Python 3.6.  Detailed information
about the changes made in 3.6.3 can be found in the change log here:

https://docs.python.org/3.6/whatsnew/changelog.html#python-3-6-3-final

Please see "What?s New In Python 3.6" for more information about the
new features in Python 3.6:

https://docs.python.org/3.6/whatsnew/3.6.html

You can download Python 3.6.3 here:

https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-363/

The next maintenance release of Python 3.6 is expected to follow in
about 3 months, around the end of 2017-12.  More information about the
3.6 release schedule can be found here:

https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0494/

Enjoy!

--
  Ned Deily
  nad at python.org -- []


From victor.stinner at gmail.com  Wed Oct  4 12:58:19 2017
From: victor.stinner at gmail.com (Victor Stinner)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 18:58:19 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] What is a CPython core developer?
In-Reply-To: <087620b6-3cfd-4c5b-2964-e3a456184ce2@python.org>
References: <CAMpsgwbs80YTRQwKoUhkAQ_kG=Y6e-ZPjd6GP0n=fUxfgPLrjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <087620b6-3cfd-4c5b-2964-e3a456184ce2@python.org>
Message-ID: <CAMpsgwYOM5hKyttxcQXnrD8rrPg86-67nRuuojCSLyPvyzhstw@mail.gmail.com>

2017-09-22 18:48 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou <antoine at python.org>:
>> * Long term commitement. (...)
>
> Unfortunately we can't evaluate that in advance.  Even the person being
> promoted often does not known whether they'll still be there in 5 or 10
> years.  Hopefully that's on their horizon, but many factors can interfere.

To be clear, I disagree with the "long term commitement", but I tried
to summarize what I heard from other core developers. I think that it
would be wrong to at least not mention it. If most core developers
disagree with this requirement, we should remove it. If there is no
consensus, I prefer to mention it *but* also explains that it's not
strictly a "requirement", but more a "whish".

I will try to clarify expectations in term of time, evenings, weekends
and holidays :-)

> I, personally, can only think of a couple of cases where a person being
> promoted core developer vanished a few months after that.  It's not a
> big deal in the grand scheme of things, though it *is* frustrating to
> spend your time mentoring and promoting someone (which also engages your
> own responsability, since you're the one vouching that they'll be up to
> the task) only to see that person produce little to no work as a core
> developer.

While it's sad, I don't think that we can prevent this. It's hard to
"force" someone to work for free on a free software during nights and
weekends.

>> * Review patches and pull requests. While we don't require not expect
>> newcomers to review, we expect that core developers dedicate a part of
>> their time on reviews.
>
> Yes, I believe this is the most important part of being a core
> developer.  What it means is that core developers care about the quality
> of the whole code base (and also the non-code parts), not only their own
> contributions to it.

I completed my list. I'm lazy, I copied/pasted what you wrote (not
only this paragraph) :-)

https://cpython-core-tutorial.readthedocs.io/en/latest/what_is_a_cpython_core_developer.html

>> * Know the CPython workflow. Be aware of the pre-commit and
>> post-commits CIs. How ideas are discussed. It's not only about writing
>> and pushing patches.
>
> This part is also required from regular contributors, at least the
> experienced ones.

Ah yes, I didn't say that these requirements are specific to CPython
core developers. Most items are "expected" from regular contributors.
I wrote it explicitly before my list :-)

> Two things I would add:
>
> - Know to be nice (...)
> - Show a bit of humility (...)

Oh, you're right. Thank you for being explicit on these points.

I think that we already expected this from promoted core developers,
just that it wasn't written down previously.

Victor

From victor.stinner at gmail.com  Wed Oct  4 13:07:59 2017
From: victor.stinner at gmail.com (Victor Stinner)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 19:07:59 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] What is a CPython core developer?
In-Reply-To: <CADiSq7c+gL2vBvZXF_KDhMbg2i8vSLhypv5tr71c4eic=5eoPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMpsgwbs80YTRQwKoUhkAQ_kG=Y6e-ZPjd6GP0n=fUxfgPLrjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7c+gL2vBvZXF_KDhMbg2i8vSLhypv5tr71c4eic=5eoPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMpsgwZs1=6_ebUvCRyTGibzQctkgC71L6Xt_xgHL6uvJ-Uu4A@mail.gmail.com>

2017-09-24 13:05 GMT+02:00 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>:
> I think what we put there really does cover the essence of the role,
> so the main questions I personally ask about a potential new core
> developer are:
>
> 1. Would gaining core developer privileges improve their ability to
> contribute effectively (in my opinion or the opinion of another core
> developer)?
> 2. Do I (or another core developer that is willing to mentor them)
> trust their judgment on when things should be escalated for further
> review & discussion (or even rejected outright) vs just going ahead
> and merging them?

Nice. I also copy/pasted you in my page :-)

https://cpython-core-tutorial.readthedocs.io/en/latest/what_is_a_cpython_core_developer.html#identify-a-potential-candidate

> An offer of post-promotion mentoring is already noted as part of the
> nomination process here:
> https://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html#what-it-takes

I'm not sure that proposing a mentor as a result of the vote is a good
practice. Slowly, I'm trying to propose to mentor some potential
candidate before even starting discussing a potential promotion. IMHO
it works better in this way.

Technically, it's "pre-promotion" mentoring :-)

I started to formalize the "Different stages of core developers":
https://cpython-core-tutorial.readthedocs.io/en/latest/what_is_a_cpython_core_developer.html#different-stages-of-core-developers

* Newcomer

* Contributor: as soon as you post a comment, send an email, ask a
question, you become an active contributor!

* Permission for bug triage: once peers estimated that your behaviour
is correct and that you are active, you may be proposed to be promoted
to ?bug triage?

* Followed by a mentor: spotted active contributors can be asked to
get a mentor to speedup their learning

* Core developer, allowed to merge a pull request: once other core
developers consider that a contributor is ready to be promoted, a core
dev opens a vote on python-committers


I would like to introduce *new* formalized steps between "contributor"
and "core developer". "Bug triage" already existed, but I'm not sure
that it was explicitly a part of a "long term promotion process".

I added a *new* explicit mentoring stage.


> There are some additional responsibilities listed at
> https://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html#responsibilities, but
> aside from the first paragraph about respecting the CoC, they're more
> in the nature of FYI's for just-promoted core devs.

I'm working on a new CPython tutorial. I have a "Community" page with:

* Code Of Conduct
* Diversity
* CPython Communication Channels

I tried to put this page near the start.

https://cpython-core-tutorial.readthedocs.io/en/latest/community.html

I plan to have a story mode in this tutorial in which you would have
to validate a step to access new parts of the tutorial. For example,
you would have to read the Community section before being allowed to
access the "Open your first issue on bugs.python.org" or "Write your
first Pull Request" sections. It's a way to make sure that all
contributors are aware of the code of conduct and diversity statement.

Victor

From p.f.moore at gmail.com  Wed Oct  4 13:11:38 2017
From: p.f.moore at gmail.com (Paul Moore)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 18:11:38 +0100
Subject: [python-committers] What is a CPython core developer?
In-Reply-To: <CAMpsgwYOM5hKyttxcQXnrD8rrPg86-67nRuuojCSLyPvyzhstw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMpsgwbs80YTRQwKoUhkAQ_kG=Y6e-ZPjd6GP0n=fUxfgPLrjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <087620b6-3cfd-4c5b-2964-e3a456184ce2@python.org>
 <CAMpsgwYOM5hKyttxcQXnrD8rrPg86-67nRuuojCSLyPvyzhstw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACac1F_N3kqX7LBiceyaKM=uYLb-So+UTm3xk_c9OU78jJA0Jg@mail.gmail.com>

On 4 October 2017 at 17:58, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2017-09-22 18:48 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou <antoine at python.org>:
>>> * Long term commitement. (...)
>>
>> Unfortunately we can't evaluate that in advance.  Even the person being
>> promoted often does not known whether they'll still be there in 5 or 10
>> years.  Hopefully that's on their horizon, but many factors can interfere.
>
> To be clear, I disagree with the "long term commitement", but I tried
> to summarize what I heard from other core developers. I think that it
> would be wrong to at least not mention it. If most core developers
> disagree with this requirement, we should remove it. If there is no
> consensus, I prefer to mention it *but* also explains that it's not
> strictly a "requirement", but more a "whish".

To me, it's about caring about the long-term health of the project,
and not just a short-term interest in scratching your personal itch.
Sometimes people will only focus on particular areas, and that's fine,
but they should be prepared to help out anywhere they can be of use.
Equally, people can find that they don't have the time to commit that
they used to - again that's OK, but they should care enough to make
sure their "area" gets handed over, or is covered by others.

Being a core committer is about caring about Python as a whole, and
for the long haul. But people give their time and skills where they
can, and to the extent that they can.

> I will try to clarify expectations in term of time, evenings, weekends
> and holidays :-)

You don't have to write code at the weekend or while you're on
holiday, but you should be thinking about Python ;-)

Paul

From mariatta.wijaya at gmail.com  Wed Oct  4 13:48:17 2017
From: mariatta.wijaya at gmail.com (Mariatta Wijaya)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 10:48:17 -0700
Subject: [python-committers] Hacktoberfest
In-Reply-To: <CAMpsgwYHtix96PB8kQfPeHSDWjY9dtqn4dx4r7mbzXKi9MeLfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGbohnZTcu=Aaf45Y_A6A4sJaqhGdZwtt0Cn=B0abW+SQhsKhw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMpsgwYHtix96PB8kQfPeHSDWjY9dtqn4dx4r7mbzXKi9MeLfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGbohna3ijmL4VE_Ma0ucMubhA37iuUTJgpAVJVoKwriv=rWog@mail.gmail.com>

One hacktoberfest issue closed!
https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/164

Thanks to Berker who reviewed and merged their PR quickly :)


Mariatta Wijaya

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 2017-09-28 18:21 GMT+02:00 Mariatta Wijaya <mariatta.wijaya at gmail.com>:
> > October is hacktoberfest (https://hacktoberfest.digitalocean.com/)
> > In the month of October, people can sign up and contribute to open source
> > projects on GitHub. If they make 4 PRs during Hacktoberfest, they'll
> earn a
> > limited edition T-Shirt.
>
> We never tried it. Maybe it will be a mess, maybe it will be a
> success. In the worst case, it will be ignored. As least if it's a
> mess, we would have try and we will learn something.
>
> I'm open to try new things, we always look for new contributors :-)
>
> Victor
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20171004/b9116919/attachment-0001.html>

From ezio.melotti at gmail.com  Wed Oct  4 17:47:03 2017
From: ezio.melotti at gmail.com (Ezio Melotti)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 23:47:03 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] What is a CPython core developer?
In-Reply-To: <CAMpsgwYOM5hKyttxcQXnrD8rrPg86-67nRuuojCSLyPvyzhstw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMpsgwbs80YTRQwKoUhkAQ_kG=Y6e-ZPjd6GP0n=fUxfgPLrjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <087620b6-3cfd-4c5b-2964-e3a456184ce2@python.org>
 <CAMpsgwYOM5hKyttxcQXnrD8rrPg86-67nRuuojCSLyPvyzhstw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACBhJdHa17gmh+izfnipM1Xn3_hJiXBFUnU-msv-uTg-WGs5hA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2017-09-22 18:48 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou <antoine at python.org>:
> >> * Long term commitement. (...)
> >
> > Unfortunately we can't evaluate that in advance.  Even the person being
> > promoted often does not known whether they'll still be there in 5 or 10
> > years.  Hopefully that's on their horizon, but many factors can
> interfere.
>
> To be clear, I disagree with the "long term commitement", but I tried
> to summarize what I heard from other core developers. I think that it
> would be wrong to at least not mention it. If most core developers
> disagree with this requirement, we should remove it. If there is no
> consensus, I prefer to mention it *but* also explains that it's not
> strictly a "requirement", but more a "whish".
>

I think it really depends on the reason the developer has been given commit
privileges:
* generic work on the documentation, tests, or stdlib? several people can
take over if the dev disappears
* changed something specific in the language (e.g. import system, Unicode
representation)? some people can take over
* added new features to the language (e.g. typing, asyncio) or a new
module? few people can take over

IOW, the lower the bus factor, the higher are the expectations of long term
commitment.

In my case I used to do lot of generic work on CPython and when I became
less active other people took over with not many repercussions.  For more
specific areas (e.g. html.parser or Unicode) I still try to participate to
the discussions.  For the bug tracker I have to commit long-term because
other devs lack the time and/or knowledge required to maintain it.

Best Regards,
Ezio Melotti




> I will try to clarify expectations in term of time, evenings, weekends
> and holidays :-)
>
> > I, personally, can only think of a couple of cases where a person being
> > promoted core developer vanished a few months after that.  It's not a
> > big deal in the grand scheme of things, though it *is* frustrating to
> > spend your time mentoring and promoting someone (which also engages your
> > own responsability, since you're the one vouching that they'll be up to
> > the task) only to see that person produce little to no work as a core
> > developer.
>
> While it's sad, I don't think that we can prevent this. It's hard to
> "force" someone to work for free on a free software during nights and
> weekends.
>
> >> * Review patches and pull requests. While we don't require not expect
> >> newcomers to review, we expect that core developers dedicate a part of
> >> their time on reviews.
> >
> > Yes, I believe this is the most important part of being a core
> > developer.  What it means is that core developers care about the quality
> > of the whole code base (and also the non-code parts), not only their own
> > contributions to it.
>
> I completed my list. I'm lazy, I copied/pasted what you wrote (not
> only this paragraph) :-)
>
> https://cpython-core-tutorial.readthedocs.io/en/latest/what_
> is_a_cpython_core_developer.html
>
> >> * Know the CPython workflow. Be aware of the pre-commit and
> >> post-commits CIs. How ideas are discussed. It's not only about writing
> >> and pushing patches.
> >
> > This part is also required from regular contributors, at least the
> > experienced ones.
>
> Ah yes, I didn't say that these requirements are specific to CPython
> core developers. Most items are "expected" from regular contributors.
> I wrote it explicitly before my list :-)
>
> > Two things I would add:
> >
> > - Know to be nice (...)
> > - Show a bit of humility (...)
>
> Oh, you're right. Thank you for being explicit on these points.
>
> I think that we already expected this from promoted core developers,
> just that it wasn't written down previously.
>
> Victor
> _______________________________________________
> python-committers mailing list
> python-committers at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20171004/05952976/attachment.html>

From p.f.moore at gmail.com  Fri Oct  6 08:16:38 2017
From: p.f.moore at gmail.com (Paul Moore)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:16:38 +0100
Subject: [python-committers] Requesting reviews
Message-ID: <CACac1F9z5W0MvBBOsVWF4PfXqGzHFHyG9c1qEurSwBqRm37hRg@mail.gmail.com>

I'm seeing a lot of review requests from github, asking for reviews
from the Windows team. Many of the PRs don't as far as I can see have
much Windows-specific about them. It doesn't bother me too much (I
just ignore ones I don't have anything to say on) but I thought the
idea of having the teams was to ask for specific experts to take a
look when needed?

As I say, it's not a big deal for me, but I'm curious how others think
the review teams should be used.

Paul

From tjreedy at udel.edu  Fri Oct  6 11:32:43 2017
From: tjreedy at udel.edu (Terry Reedy)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 11:32:43 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Requesting reviews
In-Reply-To: <CACac1F9z5W0MvBBOsVWF4PfXqGzHFHyG9c1qEurSwBqRm37hRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACac1F9z5W0MvBBOsVWF4PfXqGzHFHyG9c1qEurSwBqRm37hRg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7dd2351e-7156-e93e-c971-add2ff3b4110@udel.edu>

On 10/6/2017 8:16 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> I'm seeing a lot of review requests from github, asking for reviews
> from the Windows team. Many of the PRs don't as far as I can see have
> much Windows-specific about them. It doesn't bother me too much (I
> just ignore ones I don't have anything to say on) but I thought the
> idea of having the teams was to ask for specific experts to take a
> look when needed?

Perhaps people are asking for Windows-specific input in addition to 
input from themselves or other *nix experts, in case there is something 
they do not know about.  If so, and you look and see nothing, it might 
be helpful to say so.  Of course, it might help if the requesting person 
explains such requests.

tjr


From zachary.ware+pydev at gmail.com  Fri Oct  6 11:38:17 2017
From: zachary.ware+pydev at gmail.com (Zachary Ware)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 10:38:17 -0500
Subject: [python-committers] Requesting reviews
In-Reply-To: <CACac1F9z5W0MvBBOsVWF4PfXqGzHFHyG9c1qEurSwBqRm37hRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACac1F9z5W0MvBBOsVWF4PfXqGzHFHyG9c1qEurSwBqRm37hRg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKJDb-O6Z-j9MyqWDZg+ZY3iOQYrgTk722SsRyMWjd5Dga8gWg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm seeing a lot of review requests from github, asking for reviews
> from the Windows team. Many of the PRs don't as far as I can see have
> much Windows-specific about them. It doesn't bother me too much (I
> just ignore ones I don't have anything to say on) but I thought the
> idea of having the teams was to ask for specific experts to take a
> look when needed?
>
> As I say, it's not a big deal for me, but I'm curious how others think
> the review teams should be used.

Do you have some examples of superfluous requests?  I don't think I've
seen any, other than a rash of bad drive-by PRs that merge a
maintenance branch into master, which GitHub should be working on
preventing.  See https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/168
for more on that.

-- 
Zach

From p.f.moore at gmail.com  Fri Oct  6 11:51:30 2017
From: p.f.moore at gmail.com (Paul Moore)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 16:51:30 +0100
Subject: [python-committers] Requesting reviews
In-Reply-To: <CAKJDb-O6Z-j9MyqWDZg+ZY3iOQYrgTk722SsRyMWjd5Dga8gWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACac1F9z5W0MvBBOsVWF4PfXqGzHFHyG9c1qEurSwBqRm37hRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKJDb-O6Z-j9MyqWDZg+ZY3iOQYrgTk722SsRyMWjd5Dga8gWg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACac1F_S_UfEECp3xcoBJ3pJ1-Jkt6_wnHL9xqm7PBAwDPYUfg@mail.gmail.com>

Hmm, as an example, #2858, which seems to be about the AST (which I'm
not familiar with). I don't particularly want to single this out as a
problem, but it's an example of the sort of request that confuses me -
I simply don't know what help I can offer. Maybe there is some
suspicion that there might be a Windows element - but without some
guidance, I'm not sure where to look.

Paul

On 6 October 2017 at 16:38, Zachary Ware <zachary.ware+pydev at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm seeing a lot of review requests from github, asking for reviews
>> from the Windows team. Many of the PRs don't as far as I can see have
>> much Windows-specific about them. It doesn't bother me too much (I
>> just ignore ones I don't have anything to say on) but I thought the
>> idea of having the teams was to ask for specific experts to take a
>> look when needed?
>>
>> As I say, it's not a big deal for me, but I'm curious how others think
>> the review teams should be used.
>
> Do you have some examples of superfluous requests?  I don't think I've
> seen any, other than a rash of bad drive-by PRs that merge a
> maintenance branch into master, which GitHub should be working on
> preventing.  See https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/168
> for more on that.
>
> --
> Zach
> _______________________________________________
> python-committers mailing list
> python-committers at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

From mariatta.wijaya at gmail.com  Fri Oct  6 12:09:01 2017
From: mariatta.wijaya at gmail.com (Mariatta Wijaya)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 09:09:01 -0700
Subject: [python-committers] Requesting reviews
In-Reply-To: <CACac1F_S_UfEECp3xcoBJ3pJ1-Jkt6_wnHL9xqm7PBAwDPYUfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACac1F9z5W0MvBBOsVWF4PfXqGzHFHyG9c1qEurSwBqRm37hRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKJDb-O6Z-j9MyqWDZg+ZY3iOQYrgTk722SsRyMWjd5Dga8gWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACac1F_S_UfEECp3xcoBJ3pJ1-Jkt6_wnHL9xqm7PBAwDPYUfg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGbohnbOkL_hxReep33bZt1JVqLiUAhZqZfKcNV9FA=U9M7OEQ@mail.gmail.com>

The windows team is notified because the PR includes changes to PCBuild/*

Mariatta Wijaya

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hmm, as an example, #2858, which seems to be about the AST (which I'm
> not familiar with). I don't particularly want to single this out as a
> problem, but it's an example of the sort of request that confuses me -
> I simply don't know what help I can offer. Maybe there is some
> suspicion that there might be a Windows element - but without some
> guidance, I'm not sure where to look.
>
> Paul
>
> On 6 October 2017 at 16:38, Zachary Ware <zachary.ware+pydev at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I'm seeing a lot of review requests from github, asking for reviews
> >> from the Windows team. Many of the PRs don't as far as I can see have
> >> much Windows-specific about them. It doesn't bother me too much (I
> >> just ignore ones I don't have anything to say on) but I thought the
> >> idea of having the teams was to ask for specific experts to take a
> >> look when needed?
> >>
> >> As I say, it's not a big deal for me, but I'm curious how others think
> >> the review teams should be used.
> >
> > Do you have some examples of superfluous requests?  I don't think I've
> > seen any, other than a rash of bad drive-by PRs that merge a
> > maintenance branch into master, which GitHub should be working on
> > preventing.  See https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/168
> > for more on that.
> >
> > --
> > Zach
> > _______________________________________________
> > python-committers mailing list
> > python-committers at python.org
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
> > Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
> _______________________________________________
> python-committers mailing list
> python-committers at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20171006/de3adc17/attachment.html>

From p.f.moore at gmail.com  Fri Oct  6 12:34:29 2017
From: p.f.moore at gmail.com (Paul Moore)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 17:34:29 +0100
Subject: [python-committers] Requesting reviews
In-Reply-To: <CAGbohnbOkL_hxReep33bZt1JVqLiUAhZqZfKcNV9FA=U9M7OEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACac1F9z5W0MvBBOsVWF4PfXqGzHFHyG9c1qEurSwBqRm37hRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKJDb-O6Z-j9MyqWDZg+ZY3iOQYrgTk722SsRyMWjd5Dga8gWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACac1F_S_UfEECp3xcoBJ3pJ1-Jkt6_wnHL9xqm7PBAwDPYUfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGbohnbOkL_hxReep33bZt1JVqLiUAhZqZfKcNV9FA=U9M7OEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACac1F9=F_PMOmLuubFjHVf3+2XTzJRd2wQe3E7bEOT+2KamTQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 6 October 2017 at 17:09, Mariatta Wijaya <mariatta.wijaya at gmail.com> wrote:
> The windows team is notified because the PR includes changes to PCBuild/*

Ah cool. That explains it then - I hadn't spotted that (and didn't think of it).

Thanks Mariatta

Paul

From rdmurray at bitdance.com  Fri Oct  6 12:58:03 2017
From: rdmurray at bitdance.com (R. David Murray)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2017 12:58:03 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Requesting reviews
In-Reply-To: <CAGbohnbOkL_hxReep33bZt1JVqLiUAhZqZfKcNV9FA=U9M7OEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACac1F9z5W0MvBBOsVWF4PfXqGzHFHyG9c1qEurSwBqRm37hRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKJDb-O6Z-j9MyqWDZg+ZY3iOQYrgTk722SsRyMWjd5Dga8gWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACac1F_S_UfEECp3xcoBJ3pJ1-Jkt6_wnHL9xqm7PBAwDPYUfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGbohnbOkL_hxReep33bZt1JVqLiUAhZqZfKcNV9FA=U9M7OEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20171006165804.4798B1B10003@webabinitio.net>

On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 09:09:01 -0700, Mariatta Wijaya <mariatta.wijaya at gmail.com> wrote:
> The windows team is notified because the PR includes changes to PCBuild/*

If you get a review request that says your review was requested "as a
code owner", then it was an auto-request, it wasn't actually requested
by the person named in the message (which I agree is confusing).

You can look through the diff to check for changes to PC, PCBuild, msi,
or nuget to see if there are windows changes you do want to review.
The config for the auto-review-requests is in .github/CODEOWNERS; the
current windows team entries are:

    # Windows
    /PC/                          @python/windows-team
    /PCBuild/                     @python/windows-team

    # Windows installer packages
    /Tools/msi/                   @python/windows-team
    /Tools/nuget/                 @python/windows-team

From p.f.moore at gmail.com  Fri Oct  6 15:35:18 2017
From: p.f.moore at gmail.com (Paul Moore)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 20:35:18 +0100
Subject: [python-committers] Requesting reviews
In-Reply-To: <20171006165804.4798B1B10003@webabinitio.net>
References: <CACac1F9z5W0MvBBOsVWF4PfXqGzHFHyG9c1qEurSwBqRm37hRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKJDb-O6Z-j9MyqWDZg+ZY3iOQYrgTk722SsRyMWjd5Dga8gWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACac1F_S_UfEECp3xcoBJ3pJ1-Jkt6_wnHL9xqm7PBAwDPYUfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGbohnbOkL_hxReep33bZt1JVqLiUAhZqZfKcNV9FA=U9M7OEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171006165804.4798B1B10003@webabinitio.net>
Message-ID: <CACac1F9hCMEZhex3AZw9-KNRjXZtrmrf1HWgW=03Jd61w3S9wg@mail.gmail.com>

On 6 October 2017 at 17:58, R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 09:09:01 -0700, Mariatta Wijaya <mariatta.wijaya at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The windows team is notified because the PR includes changes to PCBuild/*
>
> If you get a review request that says your review was requested "as a
> code owner", then it was an auto-request, it wasn't actually requested
> by the person named in the message (which I agree is confusing).

Ah, right. Yes I had missed that nuance.

Thanks, I'm now much clearer on what's going on here. Thanks all for
the explanations :-)

Paul

From brett at python.org  Fri Oct  6 17:29:38 2017
From: brett at python.org (Brett Cannon)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:29:38 +0000
Subject: [python-committers] OK to back-fill "awaiting" labels on open
 issues?
Message-ID: <CAP1=2W6TPf0wO50aQ3uX4_cHDc9LG+2ukcDJFzdVZGrQ0F-skQ@mail.gmail.com>

I noticed today that out of about 19 pages of issues, only the first 5 have
"awaiting" labels. Would people object if I back-filled those open issues
lacking an "awaiting" label? For those that have a "changes requested"
review a comment that said roughly "we noticed there's a review asking for
changes; if you already did that then let us know by saying 'I didn't
expect the Spanish Inquisition' and we will update this pull request
accordingly" (the other stages don't have potential false-positives).

The reason I'm asking before coding this up and running it is there will be
some churn in notifications for those issues that get a comment about
"awaiting changes".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20171006/fd917c49/attachment-0001.html>

From alex.gaynor at gmail.com  Fri Oct  6 17:36:38 2017
From: alex.gaynor at gmail.com (Alex Gaynor)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 17:36:38 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] OK to back-fill "awaiting" labels on open
 issues?
In-Reply-To: <CAP1=2W6TPf0wO50aQ3uX4_cHDc9LG+2ukcDJFzdVZGrQ0F-skQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP1=2W6TPf0wO50aQ3uX4_cHDc9LG+2ukcDJFzdVZGrQ0F-skQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFRnB2XW+cTwukCBRdj7ETJyis3djMqjK-N1re4Ggbh2mtZpwQ@mail.gmail.com>

Can we please use a phrase for re-triggering a review that makes more sense
like "I've updated the patch, please re-review", rather than magic inside
baseball language?

Alex

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:

> I noticed today that out of about 19 pages of issues, only the first 5
> have "awaiting" labels. Would people object if I back-filled those open
> issues lacking an "awaiting" label? For those that have a "changes
> requested" review a comment that said roughly "we noticed there's a review
> asking for changes; if you already did that then let us know by saying 'I
> didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition' and we will update this pull request
> accordingly" (the other stages don't have potential false-positives).
>
> The reason I'm asking before coding this up and running it is there will
> be some churn in notifications for those issues that get a comment about
> "awaiting changes".
>
> _______________________________________________
> python-committers mailing list
> python-committers at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
>


-- 
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire)
"The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero
GPG Key fingerprint: D1B3 ADC0 E023 8CA6
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20171006/617b1e63/attachment.html>

From donald at stufft.io  Fri Oct  6 17:37:20 2017
From: donald at stufft.io (Donald Stufft)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 17:37:20 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] OK to back-fill "awaiting" labels on open
 issues?
In-Reply-To: <CAFRnB2XW+cTwukCBRdj7ETJyis3djMqjK-N1re4Ggbh2mtZpwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP1=2W6TPf0wO50aQ3uX4_cHDc9LG+2ukcDJFzdVZGrQ0F-skQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFRnB2XW+cTwukCBRdj7ETJyis3djMqjK-N1re4Ggbh2mtZpwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CF26661D-363C-4D98-A653-2586D382F12A@stufft.io>


> On Oct 6, 2017, at 5:36 PM, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Can we please use a phrase for re-triggering a review that makes more sense like "I've updated the patch, please re-review", rather than magic inside baseball language?
> 


+1


From tjreedy at udel.edu  Fri Oct  6 18:50:00 2017
From: tjreedy at udel.edu (Terry Reedy)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 18:50:00 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] OK to back-fill "awaiting" labels on open
 issues?
In-Reply-To: <CAP1=2W6TPf0wO50aQ3uX4_cHDc9LG+2ukcDJFzdVZGrQ0F-skQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP1=2W6TPf0wO50aQ3uX4_cHDc9LG+2ukcDJFzdVZGrQ0F-skQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <316af76a-cd21-4b72-d287-bf884b4748c0@udel.edu>

On 10/6/2017 5:29 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I noticed today that out of about 19 pages of issues, only the first 5 
> have "awaiting" labels. Would people object if I back-filled those open 
> issues lacking an "awaiting" label? For those that have a "changes 
> requested" review a comment that said roughly "we noticed there's a 
> review asking for changes; if you already did that then let us know by 
> saying 'I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition' and we will update this 
> pull request accordingly" (the other stages don't have potential 
> false-positives).
> 
> The reason I'm asking before coding this up and running it is there will 
> be some churn in notifications for those issues that get a comment about 
> "awaiting changes".

Could you do, for instance, a page a day, so people are less likely to 
be overwhelmed by (and ignore) a big batch?

From brett at python.org  Sat Oct  7 17:32:23 2017
From: brett at python.org (Brett Cannon)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2017 21:32:23 +0000
Subject: [python-committers] OK to back-fill "awaiting" labels on open
 issues?
In-Reply-To: <CAFRnB2XW+cTwukCBRdj7ETJyis3djMqjK-N1re4Ggbh2mtZpwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP1=2W6TPf0wO50aQ3uX4_cHDc9LG+2ukcDJFzdVZGrQ0F-skQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFRnB2XW+cTwukCBRdj7ETJyis3djMqjK-N1re4Ggbh2mtZpwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP1=2W6-gZ=BtMaueeJPEG_hPzfSTvntZJLp+D90uZzUTkNxgg@mail.gmail.com>

This off-topic for this thread. If you want to discuss adding support for
another trigger phrase you can bring it up on core-workflow.

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017, 14:36 Alex Gaynor, <alex.gaynor at gmail.com> wrote:

> Can we please use a phrase for re-triggering a review that makes more
> sense like "I've updated the patch, please re-review", rather than magic
> inside baseball language?
>
> Alex
>
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>
>> I noticed today that out of about 19 pages of issues, only the first 5
>> have "awaiting" labels. Would people object if I back-filled those open
>> issues lacking an "awaiting" label? For those that have a "changes
>> requested" review a comment that said roughly "we noticed there's a review
>> asking for changes; if you already did that then let us know by saying 'I
>> didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition' and we will update this pull request
>> accordingly" (the other stages don't have potential false-positives).
>>
>> The reason I'm asking before coding this up and running it is there will
>> be some churn in notifications for those issues that get a comment about
>> "awaiting changes".
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> python-committers mailing list
>> python-committers at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
>> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
> to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire)
> "The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero
> GPG Key fingerprint: D1B3 ADC0 E023 8CA6
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20171007/bedd36d1/attachment.html>

From brett at python.org  Sat Oct  7 17:39:17 2017
From: brett at python.org (Brett Cannon)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2017 21:39:17 +0000
Subject: [python-committers] OK to back-fill "awaiting" labels on open
 issues?
In-Reply-To: <CAP1=2W6-gZ=BtMaueeJPEG_hPzfSTvntZJLp+D90uZzUTkNxgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP1=2W6TPf0wO50aQ3uX4_cHDc9LG+2ukcDJFzdVZGrQ0F-skQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFRnB2XW+cTwukCBRdj7ETJyis3djMqjK-N1re4Ggbh2mtZpwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP1=2W6-gZ=BtMaueeJPEG_hPzfSTvntZJLp+D90uZzUTkNxgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP1=2W6UK4rtV5RNZo6P8BXUtopHy3Wajksrf-Hk-2wj-rVz-g@mail.gmail.com>

And this email was written when heading out the door, so sorry if came off
as me being short.

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017, 14:32 Brett Cannon, <brett at python.org> wrote:

> This off-topic for this thread. If you want to discuss adding support for
> another trigger phrase you can bring it up on core-workflow.
>
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017, 14:36 Alex Gaynor, <alex.gaynor at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Can we please use a phrase for re-triggering a review that makes more
>> sense like "I've updated the patch, please re-review", rather than magic
>> inside baseball language?
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I noticed today that out of about 19 pages of issues, only the first 5
>>> have "awaiting" labels. Would people object if I back-filled those open
>>> issues lacking an "awaiting" label? For those that have a "changes
>>> requested" review a comment that said roughly "we noticed there's a review
>>> asking for changes; if you already did that then let us know by saying 'I
>>> didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition' and we will update this pull request
>>> accordingly" (the other stages don't have potential false-positives).
>>>
>>> The reason I'm asking before coding this up and running it is there will
>>> be some churn in notifications for those issues that get a comment about
>>> "awaiting changes".
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> python-committers mailing list
>>> python-committers at python.org
>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
>>> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
>> to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire)
>> "The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero
>> GPG Key fingerprint: D1B3 ADC0 E023 8CA6
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20171007/4734bf5f/attachment.html>

From brett at python.org  Tue Oct 10 14:53:10 2017
From: brett at python.org (Brett Cannon)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 18:53:10 +0000
Subject: [python-committers] OK to back-fill "awaiting" labels on open
 issues?
In-Reply-To: <316af76a-cd21-4b72-d287-bf884b4748c0@udel.edu>
References: <CAP1=2W6TPf0wO50aQ3uX4_cHDc9LG+2ukcDJFzdVZGrQ0F-skQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <316af76a-cd21-4b72-d287-bf884b4748c0@udel.edu>
Message-ID: <CAP1=2W4MNqTxcBQi1kjX=4a3gpir8K=Qtva1apgFdK_yq1rphA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 at 15:50 Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:

> On 10/6/2017 5:29 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > I noticed today that out of about 19 pages of issues, only the first 5
> > have "awaiting" labels. Would people object if I back-filled those open
> > issues lacking an "awaiting" label? For those that have a "changes
> > requested" review a comment that said roughly "we noticed there's a
> > review asking for changes; if you already did that then let us know by
> > saying 'I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition' and we will update this
> > pull request accordingly" (the other stages don't have potential
> > false-positives).
> >
> > The reason I'm asking before coding this up and running it is there will
> > be some churn in notifications for those issues that get a comment about
> > "awaiting changes".
>
> Could you do, for instance, a page a day, so people are less likely to
> be overwhelmed by (and ignore) a big batch?
>

Yes, the work could be smeared across multiple days.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20171010/26dda201/attachment.html>

From brett at python.org  Tue Oct 10 14:57:59 2017
From: brett at python.org (Brett Cannon)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 18:57:59 +0000
Subject: [python-committers] OK to back-fill "awaiting" labels on open
 issues?
In-Reply-To: <CF26661D-363C-4D98-A653-2586D382F12A@stufft.io>
References: <CAP1=2W6TPf0wO50aQ3uX4_cHDc9LG+2ukcDJFzdVZGrQ0F-skQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFRnB2XW+cTwukCBRdj7ETJyis3djMqjK-N1re4Ggbh2mtZpwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CF26661D-363C-4D98-A653-2586D382F12A@stufft.io>
Message-ID: <CAP1=2W45Lxk0N8gPHODVLz9FhPwOjW21-EK6BXat5dRp5UQReg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 at 14:37 Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:

>
> > On Oct 6, 2017, at 5:36 PM, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can we please use a phrase for re-triggering a review that makes more
> sense like "I've updated the patch, please re-review", rather than magic
> inside baseball language?
> >
>
>
> +1
>

I just added support for the trigger phrase of "I have made the requested
changes; please review again" (which is now what people are asked to say).
The "I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition" trigger has stayed as an
easter egg (whose response is also part of the easter egg). I also left the
random easter egg on the comment about the required comment.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20171010/1b70f520/attachment.html>

From nad at python.org  Tue Oct 17 15:35:57 2017
From: nad at python.org (Ned Deily)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:35:57 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] [RELEASE] Python 3.7.0a2 is now available for
 testing
Message-ID: <77DF3A3A-DC16-46A3-A933-B0CDA771EAB9@python.org>

Python 3.7.0a2 is the second of four planned alpha previews of Python 3.7,
the next feature release of Python.  During the alpha phase, Python 3.7
remains under heavy development: additional features will be added
and existing features may be modified or deleted.  Please keep in mind
that this is a preview release and its use is not recommended for
production environments.  The next preview, 3.7.0a3, is planned for
2017-11-27.  You can find Python 3.7.0a2 and more information here:

   https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-370a2/

--
  Ned Deily
  nad at python.org -- []


From antoine at python.org  Sun Oct 22 13:48:12 2017
From: antoine at python.org (Antoine Pitrou)
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 19:48:12 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Merging a PR with failed CI
Message-ID: <48b03695-045f-2bcd-b191-122bb7c96a7b@python.org>


Hello,

What is the recommended way of merging a PR when Travis-CI failed for
unrelated reasons? (apparently an external NNTP server is having hiccups)

See https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/4065

Regards

Antoine.

From alex.gaynor at gmail.com  Sun Oct 22 13:56:41 2017
From: alex.gaynor at gmail.com (Alex Gaynor)
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:56:41 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Merging a PR with failed CI
In-Reply-To: <48b03695-045f-2bcd-b191-122bb7c96a7b@python.org>
References: <48b03695-045f-2bcd-b191-122bb7c96a7b@python.org>
Message-ID: <CAFRnB2Wi3AXcj2h=Yj+=hmvUePDT1XjigDfkd49BGjWW65kAzQ@mail.gmail.com>

On other projects I work on, my usual practice is to restart the Travis job
and wait for it to pass.

Alex

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Antoine Pitrou <antoine at python.org> wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> What is the recommended way of merging a PR when Travis-CI failed for
> unrelated reasons? (apparently an external NNTP server is having hiccups)
>
> See https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/4065
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
> _______________________________________________
> python-committers mailing list
> python-committers at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>



-- 
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire)
"The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero
GPG Key fingerprint: D1B3 ADC0 E023 8CA6
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20171022/2dec4d20/attachment.html>

From xdegaye at gmail.com  Mon Oct 23 11:41:37 2017
From: xdegaye at gmail.com (Xavier de Gaye)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 17:41:37 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Travis stuck forever with "Waiting for status
 to be reported"
Message-ID: <d526a642-4abd-ed8e-9e2e-592bbb4c4e90@gmail.com>

This has happened to me at least twice.
FWIW closing the PR and re-opening it triggers a new sequence of checks and fixes the problem.

Xavier