[core-workflow] Starting the improved workflow discussion again

[Nick Coghlan]

On 22 July 2015 at 04:14, Ezio Melotti <ezio.melotti at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Brett Cannon <bcannon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> In my ideal workflow scenario, these are the steps a patch would take:
>>
>> Issue is created
>> Issue is triaged to have right affected versions, etc.
>> Patch is uploaded
>> CI kicks the patch off for all branches and OSs that are affected
>> CI flags what branches and OSs did (not) pass or apply cleanly to
>
> Checking if a patch applies cleanly on the active branches can be done
> with a Roundup detector.
> The detector can also add this information in the patch metadata.
>
> We currently have two GSoC students working on Roundup:
> 1) one is adding a REST API that will make a lot of these things simpler;
> 2) the other so far worked on an hg extension that talks with Roundup
> and is currently working on a patch analysis feature that figures out
> which files are affected (and could also check which branches the
> patch applies to).
>
> The patch analysis shouldn't be too expensive, and can probably been
> done for each patch as soon as it's uploaded.
> These and other tracker improvements will likely get integrated around
> the end of GSoC.

\o/

Thank you for driving that.

Regards,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia