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

[francis]

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?)


And one minor detail. Early on "Current Tools":
"""
This proposal suggests replacing the use of Rietveld for code review
with the more full-featured Kallithea-based forge.python.org service
proposed in PEP 474 .
"""

and then later on "Perceived Benefits":
"""
the merge queue would allow that developer to focus more of their time
on reviewing patches and helping the other contributors at the sprint,
since accepting a patch for inclusion would now be a single click in the
Rietveld UI, rather [...]
"""
Isn't "Kallithea UI" meant here?


And +1 for self-hosting on:
"""
This proposal respects that history by recommending only tools that are
available for self-hosting as sponsored or PSF funded infrastructure,
and are also open source Python projects that can be customised to meet
the needs of the CPython core development team
"""

I like the PEP.


PS: Should this be forwarded to python-workflow or is that other list to
be considered obsolete?

Regards,
francis