[Python-Dev] Workflow improvement PEPs 474 & 462 updated

[Pierre-Yves David]

On 02/02/2015 01:11 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On 2 Feb 2015 04:56, "francis" <francismb at email.de
> <mailto:francismb at email.de>> wrote:
>  >
>  > Hi Nick,
>  >
>  > On 02/01/2015 08:46 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>  > [...]
>  > > The updates to PEP 462, which covers proposed changes to the main
>  > > CPython workflow, were more significant, as I've now rewritten that to
>  > > depend on PEP 474, and propose replacing the current Rietveld patch
>  > > review workflow with an updated approach based on Kallithea and Zuul:
>  > > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0462/
>  > >
>  >
>  >
>  > A small question on:
>  > """
>  > Push races would also be a thing of the past - if lots of core
>  > developers are approving patches at a sprint, then that just means the
>  > queue gets deeper in Zuul, rather than developers getting frustrated
>  > trying to merge changes and failing.
>  > """
>  > How does the Tool Zuul resolve the case where the patches are not fully
>  > compatible. E.g. they touch the same file and some manually merging is
>  > needed? (Isn't that a push race? or I'm missing something?)
>
> That's an actual merge conflict, the push races I'm referring to are the
> ones where there's no conflict, but Mercurial objects to the non-linear
> history. Zuul takes care of linearising everything and making sure the
> tests pass before committing the change to the relevant branch.

On this topic, Facebook recently open-sourced a mercurial extension 
doing server side rebasing to linearise history in simple cases. special 
flag during push will get your new changes seamlessly rebased on the new 
head. This however does not run the tests so the Zuul approach is more 
complete.

>  > PS: Should this be forwarded to python-workflow or is that other list to
>  > be considered obsolete?
>
> I withdrew from participating in that list when an individual banned
> from the core mailing lists and the issue tracker for persistently
> failing to respect other participants in those communities chose to
> participate in it despite an explicit request from me that he refrain
> from doing so (after wasting years trying to coach him into more
> productive modes of engagement, I now just cut my losses and flat out
> refuse to work in any environment where he has a significant presence).
>
> Since our moderation practices don't currently include a way to request
> transferring bans between lists, and I'm reluctant to push for that to
> change when I have such a clear personal stake in the outcome (it reads
> like a personal vendetta against the individual concerned), that's the
> way things are likely to stay unless/until he also gets himself banned
> from the core workflow list.

Without emitting any judgment on your decision, I'm deeply sad that this 
list have been "abandoned".

-- 
Pierre-Yves David