[Python-Dev] PEP 481 - Migrate Some Supporting Repositories to Git and Github

[Nick Coghlan]

On 3 Dec 2014 08:47, "Donald Stufft" <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
>
>
>> On Dec 2, 2014, at 5:42 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>>
>> Before anyone gets too excited about Rietveld (which I originally wrote
as an APp Engine demo), AFAIK we're using a fork that only Martin von
Loewis can maintain -- and it's a dead-end fork because the Rietveld
project itself only supports App Engine, but Martin's fork runs on our own
server infrastructure. These environments are *very* different (App Engine
has its own unique noSQL API) and it took a major hack (not by MvL) to get
it to work outside App Engine. That fork is not supported, and hence our
Rietveld installation still has various bugs that have long been squashed
in the main Rietveld repo. (And no, I don't have time to help with this --
my recommendation is to move off Rietveld to something supported.)

Thanks Guido - I'd started thinking in that direction for PEP 462 (in terms
of potentially using Kallithea/RhodeCode for the review component rather
than Reitveld), so it's good to know you'd be OK with such a change.

> It probably makes sense to include code reviews in the matrix of what
tools we’re going to use then yea?

I'd suggest asking for discussion of a more general path forward for
CPython workflow improvements.

Not a "this must be included in the proposal", but rather answering the
question, "if we choose this option for the support repos, how will it
impact the future direction of CPython maintenance itself?".

Cheers,
Nick.

>
> Like Github/Bitbucket/etc have review built in. Other tools like
Phabricator do as well but are self hosted instead.
>
> ---
> Donald Stufft
> PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20141203/bc5b895a/attachment.html>