On Tue Nov 25 2014 at 1:17:49 AM Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 November 2014 at 13:18, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > > > > There’s also the social aspects of it as well which is a big concern too > IMO. If you want to attract new contributors, not just keep the ones you > already have sometimes that means going to where the new contributors are > instead of telling them that they need to come to you. > > Again, the bottleneck at the moment is *reviewing* contributions, not > getting more of them. The two aspects are not unrelated, but my key > concern at this point is to make the patch review and acceptance > process easier, moreso than to increase the rate of incoming patches. > > My short term proposal to consider BitBucket as an option for support > repo hosting purposes was mostly driven by my delays in getting the > end-to-end signing PEPs for PyPI updated in a timely fashion - that > would have been much easier if the authors had been able to submit > pull requests, and I just reviewed and accepted them. > And then people thought, "ooh, if we are going to open that can of worms we might as well get the better network effect of GitHub" along with Guido going "git >= hg". > > The subsequent discussion has made me realise that dissatisfaction > with the current state of the infrastructure amongst core developers > is higher than I previously realised, so I've re-evaluated my own > priorities, and will be spending more time on both PEP 474 > (forge.python.org) and PEP 462 (the far more complex proposal to > consider introducing OpenStack style merge gating for CPython). > Yay! > > At present, it looks like significant workflow improvements for the > main CPython repos will require custom tooling - there's very little > out there that will adequately support a long term maintenance branch, > a short term maintenance branch, additional security fix only > branches, and a separate main line of development. > Yes, we are unfortunately special. > > Having our own Kallithea installation would provide additional > implementation options on that front, so I'll be keeping that in mind > as I work to get the proof-of-concept forge instance online. > I think this is a reasonable summary of what came up. Short of Donald and maybe Guido really liking the GitHub idea because of their reach, most of us just want better tooling and we all have various compromises we are willing to make to gain that tooling. I suspect if we make sure we add Bitbucket and GitHub login support to the issue tracker then that would help go a fair distance to helping with the GitHub pull of reach (and if we make it so people can simply paste in their fork's URL into the issue tracker and we simply grab a new patch for review that would go even farther).
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
