On 12/8/2018 11:32 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Whether the UX counts as "good" or not is open to debate (I consider
it pretty good for the complexity of the task it handles), but if you
ever want to revise the history of a complex patch series to make it
easier for reviewers to follow:
1. Use "git
On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 at 09:10, Steve Dower wrote:
> And let's be honest, there's no good tooling for turning a series of
> interdependent commits into a smaller set of sensible ones. Squashing at
> least gets rid of the changes that were reverted as part of the entire
> PR, and if you then just want
On 07Dec2018 1340, Terry Reedy wrote:
Simple bugfix example:
Add test to test_mod that fails with TwinkleError.
Posted to issue by Joe Blow.
Make new test pass using the 'underhand' strategy.
The split above is not really necessary, but PR 10245 squashed changes
to 52 files of 15 file types i
On 12/7/2018 11:31 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
I would be simpler if it would be possible to have a "patch serie":
list of pull requests,
One can make an 'index issue' with multiple dependencies, each with a
PR. I do this for multiple independent changes to a module or related
modules.
or
Le ven. 7 déc. 2018 à 16:16, Steve Dower a écrit :
> The other changes are either in Windows-only files or tests. The one
> exception is venv, where they are in "if os.name=='nt'" blocks. I also
> pinged our venv expert a few times with no response.
Yeah, the lack of review is an issue in Python,
Le ven. 7 déc. 2018 à 16:42, Steve Dower a écrit :
> As a slight aside, 8 out of 8 buildbot messages on the PR look like
> false positives, and none of the true positives sent a message. What
> happened there?
I don't know why the PR didn't get notifications about the regression.
I got something
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 9:17 AM Steve Dower wrote:
> Also for not submitting custom builds to all the buildbots (Can we still do
> that? I'm not seeing any UI right now... I did run a number of test
> release builds on the release machine, so I knew that was going to be okay.)
The UX is not great,
> On 07Dec2018 0716, Steve Dower wrote:
> > It didn't break all Windows buildbots.
> >
> > That said, it's totally my fault for merging and then not watching. Also
> > for not submitting custom builds to all the buildbots (Can we still do
> > that? I'm not seeing any UI right now... I did run a num
As a slight aside, 8 out of 8 buildbot messages on the PR look like
false positives, and none of the true positives sent a message. What
happened there?
On 07Dec2018 0716, Steve Dower wrote:
> Thanks for fixing up the buildbots, but please be a little more thorough
> before making publicly incorre
Thanks for fixing up the buildbots, but please be a little more thorough
before making publicly incorrect statements.
The change is 99% adding new files that are not part of Python, but
participate in the build for Windows (and are available and incredibly
useful for everyone). These are essential
Hi,
I had to revert a change since it broke buildbots. Sadly, I don't have
the bandwidth to investigate the failures and try to fix the change
:-(
A large change has been pushed into the 3.7 and master branches to
"Add Windows App Store package":
"Release Windows Store app containing Python"
ht
11 matches
Mail list logo
