From mariatta.wijaya at gmail.com  Mon Oct  2 13:46:03 2017
From: mariatta.wijaya at gmail.com (Mariatta Wijaya)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 10:46:03 -0700
Subject: [core-workflow] PR Stage labels for the other repos too?
Message-ID: <CAGbohnboF_3qgrnKhByKUPsiCfJYu9CH=EFjGTs3RJ7Qh45kHA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I really like how bedevere-bot applies the different "awaiting ..." labels
to CPython pull requests based on the stage of the PR: awaiting review,
awaiting core review, awaiting merge, and so on.

Wouldn't it be great if this can work for the other repos too? For example
the Dev Guide..



Mariatta Wijaya
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/attachments/20171002/8390fd93/attachment.html>

From donald at stufft.io  Sat Oct  7 17:38:14 2017
From: donald at stufft.io (Donald Stufft)
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:38:14 -0400
Subject: [core-workflow] Use something other than an In-joke for Trigger
 Phrases
Message-ID: <ACCF3052-AEC8-4056-BD0F-DB59ECB5A775@stufft.io>

Currently the workflow for CPython development requires people to say 'I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition? in order to request a re-review of their work. Can we please use a phrase for this that makes more sense rather than, as Alex put it, ?magic inside baseball language?.

In jokes can be fun when they?re able to essentially be just noise to people who aren?t part of the in crowd (e.g. the bot name being one is fine) but they?re kind of crummy when a core part of the developer experience or API. Leave it in as an Easter egg if you like (and probably should for backwards compatibility anyways), but please make something else be the primary phrase.

From alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com  Sat Oct  7 17:44:07 2017
From: alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com (Alexander Belopolsky)
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:44:07 -0400
Subject: [core-workflow] Use something other than an In-joke for Trigger
 Phrases
In-Reply-To: <ACCF3052-AEC8-4056-BD0F-DB59ECB5A775@stufft.io>
References: <ACCF3052-AEC8-4056-BD0F-DB59ECB5A775@stufft.io>
Message-ID: <CAP7h-xa7UfHYiXYDggNqkvGwS48tSXnqtMkBX+Pxsa-SXg2iQw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:

> .. Leave it in as an Easter egg if you like (and probably should for backwards compatibility
> anyways), but please make something else be the primary phrase.
>

I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. :-)

From ncoghlan at gmail.com  Sun Oct  8 03:55:13 2017
From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan)
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 17:55:13 +1000
Subject: [core-workflow] Use something other than an In-joke for Trigger
 Phrases
In-Reply-To: <ACCF3052-AEC8-4056-BD0F-DB59ECB5A775@stufft.io>
References: <ACCF3052-AEC8-4056-BD0F-DB59ECB5A775@stufft.io>
Message-ID: <CADiSq7esBGXPF1GXjR5_ok8F-ZuohFTSio4RmmS1p2diwLiGKQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 8 October 2017 at 07:38, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:

> Currently the workflow for CPython development requires people to say 'I
> didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition? in order to request a re-review of
> their work. Can we please use a phrase for this that makes more sense
> rather than, as Alex put it, ?magic inside baseball language?.
>
> In jokes can be fun when they?re able to essentially be just noise to
> people who aren?t part of the in crowd (e.g. the bot name being one is
> fine) but they?re kind of crummy when a core part of the developer
> experience or API. Leave it in as an Easter egg if you like (and probably
> should for backwards compatibility anyways), but please make something else
> be the primary phrase.
>

I'd agree with this (especially since references to the Spanish inquisition
aren't going to be funny for folks that are still facing religious
persecution).

Having the bot name in the trigger phrase is a good way to avoid accidental
activation, so something like "Bedevere: ready for review" would be good
(and, as Donald notes, it's fine to keep the current phrase as a secondary
trigger - it just shouldn't be the main documented one).

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/attachments/20171008/7aaed97c/attachment.html>

From brett at python.org  Sun Oct  8 12:44:52 2017
From: brett at python.org (Brett Cannon)
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 16:44:52 +0000
Subject: [core-workflow] Use something other than an In-joke for Trigger
 Phrases
In-Reply-To: <CADiSq7esBGXPF1GXjR5_ok8F-ZuohFTSio4RmmS1p2diwLiGKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ACCF3052-AEC8-4056-BD0F-DB59ECB5A775@stufft.io>
 <CADiSq7esBGXPF1GXjR5_ok8F-ZuohFTSio4RmmS1p2diwLiGKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP1=2W40=MZe=43_+ACXeBaydkFVZ2FKsdSqT4he2MA3FizEGg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 00:55 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8 October 2017 at 07:38, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
>
>> Currently the workflow for CPython development requires people to say 'I
>> didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition? in order to request a re-review of
>> their work. Can we please use a phrase for this that makes more sense
>> rather than, as Alex put it, ?magic inside baseball language?.
>>
>> In jokes can be fun when they?re able to essentially be just noise to
>> people who aren?t part of the in crowd (e.g. the bot name being one is
>> fine) but they?re kind of crummy when a core part of the developer
>> experience or API. Leave it in as an Easter egg if you like (and probably
>> should for backwards compatibility anyways), but please make something else
>> be the primary phrase.
>>
>
> I'd agree with this (especially since references to the Spanish
> inquisition aren't going to be funny for folks that are still facing
> religious persecution).
>
> Having the bot name in the trigger phrase is a good way to avoid
> accidental activation, so something like "Bedevere: ready for review" would
> be good (and, as Donald notes, it's fine to keep the current phrase as a
> secondary trigger - it just shouldn't be the main documented one).
>

I actually wouldn't want the bot name in the trigger phrase since you're
not addressing the bot but the reviewer(s). So using something that is
unambiguous as a trigger phrase like "please re-review" or "please review
again" that won't come up in conversation about what is required should be
enough to be unambiguous of the intent of the commenter as well has not
seeming quite so forced.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/attachments/20171008/30b3085d/attachment.html>

From brett at python.org  Sun Oct  8 13:16:47 2017
From: brett at python.org (Brett Cannon)
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 17:16:47 +0000
Subject: [core-workflow] Use something other than an In-joke for Trigger
 Phrases
In-Reply-To: <CAP1=2W40=MZe=43_+ACXeBaydkFVZ2FKsdSqT4he2MA3FizEGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ACCF3052-AEC8-4056-BD0F-DB59ECB5A775@stufft.io>
 <CADiSq7esBGXPF1GXjR5_ok8F-ZuohFTSio4RmmS1p2diwLiGKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP1=2W40=MZe=43_+ACXeBaydkFVZ2FKsdSqT4he2MA3FizEGg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP1=2W6H5BC0yk3z8CZHX1nQdZq3XZErH2Zz8DEangqD1MqoGQ@mail.gmail.com>

See https://github.com/python/bedevere/pull/66 for a PR to support an
additional, more muted trigger phrase (currently "Please review again").

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 09:44 Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 00:55 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8 October 2017 at 07:38, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
>>
>>> Currently the workflow for CPython development requires people to say 'I
>>> didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition? in order to request a re-review of
>>> their work. Can we please use a phrase for this that makes more sense
>>> rather than, as Alex put it, ?magic inside baseball language?.
>>>
>>> In jokes can be fun when they?re able to essentially be just noise to
>>> people who aren?t part of the in crowd (e.g. the bot name being one is
>>> fine) but they?re kind of crummy when a core part of the developer
>>> experience or API. Leave it in as an Easter egg if you like (and probably
>>> should for backwards compatibility anyways), but please make something else
>>> be the primary phrase.
>>>
>>
>> I'd agree with this (especially since references to the Spanish
>> inquisition aren't going to be funny for folks that are still facing
>> religious persecution).
>>
>> Having the bot name in the trigger phrase is a good way to avoid
>> accidental activation, so something like "Bedevere: ready for review" would
>> be good (and, as Donald notes, it's fine to keep the current phrase as a
>> secondary trigger - it just shouldn't be the main documented one).
>>
>
> I actually wouldn't want the bot name in the trigger phrase since you're
> not addressing the bot but the reviewer(s). So using something that is
> unambiguous as a trigger phrase like "please re-review" or "please review
> again" that won't come up in conversation about what is required should be
> enough to be unambiguous of the intent of the commenter as well has not
> seeming quite so forced.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/attachments/20171008/a23d81bd/attachment.html>

From ethan at stoneleaf.us  Tue Oct 10 03:09:05 2017
From: ethan at stoneleaf.us (Ethan Furman)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:09:05 -0700
Subject: [core-workflow] Use something other than an In-joke for Trigger
 Phrases
In-Reply-To: <CAP1=2W40=MZe=43_+ACXeBaydkFVZ2FKsdSqT4he2MA3FizEGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ACCF3052-AEC8-4056-BD0F-DB59ECB5A775@stufft.io>
 <CADiSq7esBGXPF1GXjR5_ok8F-ZuohFTSio4RmmS1p2diwLiGKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP1=2W40=MZe=43_+ACXeBaydkFVZ2FKsdSqT4he2MA3FizEGg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <59DC7211.6070804@stoneleaf.us>

On 10/08/2017 09:44 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:

> I actually wouldn't want the bot name in the trigger phrase since you're not addressing the bot but the reviewer(s). So
> using something that is unambiguous as a trigger phrase like "please re-review" or "please review again" that won't come
> up in conversation about what is required should be enough to be unambiguous of the intent of the commenter as well has
> not seeming quite so forced.

You're addressing the bot to notify the reviewers.  It's like asking one's secretary to schedule an appointment with 
one's peers.

--
~Ethan~

From brett at python.org  Tue Oct 10 14:51:29 2017
From: brett at python.org (Brett Cannon)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 18:51:29 +0000
Subject: [core-workflow] Use something other than an In-joke for Trigger
 Phrases
In-Reply-To: <59DC7211.6070804@stoneleaf.us>
References: <ACCF3052-AEC8-4056-BD0F-DB59ECB5A775@stufft.io>
 <CADiSq7esBGXPF1GXjR5_ok8F-ZuohFTSio4RmmS1p2diwLiGKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP1=2W40=MZe=43_+ACXeBaydkFVZ2FKsdSqT4he2MA3FizEGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <59DC7211.6070804@stoneleaf.us>
Message-ID: <CAP1=2W5tdnVipbYD1r=nKrNkUpgSdW1bKhdUCSQQ93c8QOtkng@mail.gmail.com>

I just merged the PR and went with "I have made the requested changes;
please review again". Figured this makes people aware that they are to have
addressed the changes before requesting a review and has them saying
"please". :) Plus there's no way anyone will accidentally type that in
conversation on a pull request.

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 at 00:09 Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote:

> On 10/08/2017 09:44 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> > I actually wouldn't want the bot name in the trigger phrase since you're
> not addressing the bot but the reviewer(s). So
> > using something that is unambiguous as a trigger phrase like "please
> re-review" or "please review again" that won't come
> > up in conversation about what is required should be enough to be
> unambiguous of the intent of the commenter as well has
> > not seeming quite so forced.
>
> You're addressing the bot to notify the reviewers.  It's like asking one's
> secretary to schedule an appointment with
> one's peers.
>
> --
> ~Ethan~
> _______________________________________________
> core-workflow mailing list
> core-workflow at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow
> This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct:
> https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/attachments/20171010/f31870bb/attachment.html>

From ethan at stoneleaf.us  Wed Oct 11 02:33:58 2017
From: ethan at stoneleaf.us (Ethan Furman)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:33:58 -0700
Subject: [core-workflow] Use something other than an In-joke for Trigger
 Phrases
In-Reply-To: <CAP1=2W5tdnVipbYD1r=nKrNkUpgSdW1bKhdUCSQQ93c8QOtkng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ACCF3052-AEC8-4056-BD0F-DB59ECB5A775@stufft.io>
 <CADiSq7esBGXPF1GXjR5_ok8F-ZuohFTSio4RmmS1p2diwLiGKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP1=2W40=MZe=43_+ACXeBaydkFVZ2FKsdSqT4he2MA3FizEGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <59DC7211.6070804@stoneleaf.us>
 <CAP1=2W5tdnVipbYD1r=nKrNkUpgSdW1bKhdUCSQQ93c8QOtkng@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <59DDBB56.5000805@stoneleaf.us>

On 10/10/2017 11:51 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:

> I just merged the PR and went with "I have made the requested changes; please review again". Figured this makes people
> aware that they are to have addressed the changes before requesting a review and has them saying "please". :) Plus
> there's no way anyone will accidentally type that in conversation on a pull request.

Unless they have it attached to a macro and accidentally activate it.  ;)

--
~Ethan~