From shah.anish07 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 16:20:40 2016 From: shah.anish07 at gmail.com (Anish Shah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 01:50:40 +0530 Subject: [core-workflow] GitHub Integration Message-ID: Hello everyone, This mail is about my progress so far in integrating GitHub and few doubts/questions about how to do stuff. *Progress* *Show GitHub Pull Request comments on b.p.o*. [1] - Issue and review comments will be added to the linked b.p.o issue. Only one comment will be posted over 30 minutes. *Questions/Doubts* *Converting patches to pull requests *- First, let me tell you all my approach and questions that I have. Please let me know if you have better ways to do this. *Approach* We need to have a git binary on b.p.o server and when a patch is uploaded, we run a series of git commands from roundup to apply the patch, commit using contributor's credentials, push the new branch and finally create a new pull request using GitHub API. *Questions* 1. How should we inform the contributor about the newly created PR? (S)he won't get subscribed to it automatically as the PR is created using API. 2. What should we do an issue affects multiple versions? Should we open multiple pull requests against each branch? 3. There can be different patches for 2.7 and 3.x versions. Currently, there's no way of determining which patch is for which branch. So, it would be difficult to create a new pull request. Looking forward to what you guys think. Thanks, Anish Shah [1] http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue592 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brett at python.org Tue Jun 7 12:18:41 2016 From: brett at python.org (Brett Cannon) Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 16:18:41 +0000 Subject: [core-workflow] GitHub Integration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 at 13:20 Anish Shah wrote: > Hello everyone, > > This mail is about my progress so far in integrating GitHub and few > doubts/questions about how to do stuff. > > *Progress* > > *Show GitHub Pull Request comments on b.p.o*. [1] - Issue and review > comments will be added to the linked b.p.o issue. Only one comment will be > posted over 30 minutes. > > *Questions/Doubts* > > *Converting patches to pull requests *- First, let me tell you all my > approach and questions that I have. Please let me know if you have better > ways to do this. > > *Approach* > We need to have a git binary on b.p.o server and when a patch is uploaded, > we run a series of git commands from roundup to apply the patch, commit > using contributor's credentials, push the new branch and finally create a > new pull request using GitHub API. > > *Questions* > > 1. How should we inform the contributor about the newly created PR? (S)he > won't get subscribed to it automatically as the PR is created using API. > A mention in the issue and in a GitHub comment should be enough. > > 2. What should we do an issue affects multiple versions? Should we open > multiple pull requests against each branch? > We have not decided how we want to handle this in the workflow. > > 3. There can be different patches for 2.7 and 3.x versions. Currently, > there's no way of determining which patch is for which branch. So, it would > be difficult to create a new pull request. > Yep, that's tricky. > > Looking forward to what you guys think. > Obviously what you work on is between you and Maciej, Anish, but I view this feature as low-priority. To me the two most important things are tying a pull request to an issue (I know you added a field but we will also need some GitHub web hook that will detect an issue in a PR title and automatically make the connection), and leaving a comment on an issue once a commit lands that mentions an issue in the commit message (like we currently do w/ hg). -Brett > > Thanks, > Anish Shah > > [1] http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue592 > _______________________________________________ > 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: From shah.anish07 at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 13:50:13 2016 From: shah.anish07 at gmail.com (Anish Shah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:20:13 +0530 Subject: [core-workflow] GitHub Integration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 at 13:20 Anish Shah wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> This mail is about my progress so far in integrating GitHub and few >> doubts/questions about how to do stuff. >> >> *Progress* >> >> *Show GitHub Pull Request comments on b.p.o*. [1] - Issue and review >> comments will be added to the linked b.p.o issue. Only one comment will be >> posted over 30 minutes. >> >> *Questions/Doubts* >> >> *Converting patches to pull requests *- First, let me tell you all my >> approach and questions that I have. Please let me know if you have better >> ways to do this. >> >> *Approach* >> We need to have a git binary on b.p.o server and when a patch is >> uploaded, we run a series of git commands from roundup to apply the patch, >> commit using contributor's credentials, push the new branch and finally >> create a new pull request using GitHub API. >> >> *Questions* >> >> 1. How should we inform the contributor about the newly created PR? (S)he >> won't get subscribed to it automatically as the PR is created using API. >> > > A mention in the issue and in a GitHub comment should be enough. > > >> >> 2. What should we do an issue affects multiple versions? Should we open >> multiple pull requests against each branch? >> > > We have not decided how we want to handle this in the workflow. > > >> >> 3. There can be different patches for 2.7 and 3.x versions. Currently, >> there's no way of determining which patch is for which branch. So, it would >> be difficult to create a new pull request. >> > > Yep, that's tricky. > > >> >> Looking forward to what you guys think. >> > > Obviously what you work on is between you and Maciej, Anish, but I view > this feature as low-priority. To me the two most important things are tying > a pull request to an issue (I know you added a field but we will also need > some GitHub web hook that will detect an issue in a PR title and > automatically make the connection), and leaving a comment on an issue once > a commit lands that mentions an issue in the commit message (like we > currently do w/ hg). > ?Thanks Brett. I have already submitted an initial patch for linking a pull request to an issue using GitHub web hooks. :) ? > > -Brett > > >> >> Thanks, >> Anish Shah >> >> [1] http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue592 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From brett at python.org Wed Jun 8 14:27:16 2016 From: brett at python.org (Brett Cannon) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 18:27:16 +0000 Subject: [core-workflow] GitHub Integration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Awesome, thanks! On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 at 10:50 Anish Shah wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 at 13:20 Anish Shah wrote: >> >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> This mail is about my progress so far in integrating GitHub and few >>> doubts/questions about how to do stuff. >>> >>> *Progress* >>> >>> *Show GitHub Pull Request comments on b.p.o*. [1] - Issue and review >>> comments will be added to the linked b.p.o issue. Only one comment will be >>> posted over 30 minutes. >>> >>> *Questions/Doubts* >>> >>> *Converting patches to pull requests *- First, let me tell you all my >>> approach and questions that I have. Please let me know if you have better >>> ways to do this. >>> >>> *Approach* >>> We need to have a git binary on b.p.o server and when a patch is >>> uploaded, we run a series of git commands from roundup to apply the patch, >>> commit using contributor's credentials, push the new branch and finally >>> create a new pull request using GitHub API. >>> >>> *Questions* >>> >>> 1. How should we inform the contributor about the newly created PR? >>> (S)he won't get subscribed to it automatically as the PR is created using >>> API. >>> >> >> A mention in the issue and in a GitHub comment should be enough. >> >> >>> >>> 2. What should we do an issue affects multiple versions? Should we open >>> multiple pull requests against each branch? >>> >> >> We have not decided how we want to handle this in the workflow. >> >> >>> >>> 3. There can be different patches for 2.7 and 3.x versions. Currently, >>> there's no way of determining which patch is for which branch. So, it would >>> be difficult to create a new pull request. >>> >> >> Yep, that's tricky. >> >> >>> >>> Looking forward to what you guys think. >>> >> >> Obviously what you work on is between you and Maciej, Anish, but I view >> this feature as low-priority. To me the two most important things are tying >> a pull request to an issue (I know you added a field but we will also need >> some GitHub web hook that will detect an issue in a PR title and >> automatically make the connection), and leaving a comment on an issue once >> a commit lands that mentions an issue in the commit message (like we >> currently do w/ hg). >> > > ?Thanks Brett. I have already submitted an initial patch for linking a > pull request to an issue using GitHub web hooks. :) ? > > > >> >> -Brett >> >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Anish Shah >>> >>> [1] http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue592 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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: From brett at python.org Wed Jun 15 18:56:35 2016 From: brett at python.org (Brett Cannon) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:56:35 +0000 Subject: [core-workflow] The peps repo has been migrated! Message-ID: Python's PEPs now officially live at https://github.com/python/peps . Thanks to Donald Stufft for the infrastructure stuff, Kushal Das for pushing me at the PyCon US sprints to get this going, Senthil Kumaran for the migration tool, and everyone else who has helped somehow in making this happen. I'll be updating PEP 512 -- on GitHub! -- to reflect this. That will make the devguide the next repo to migrate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncoghlan at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 00:58:38 2016 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:58:38 -0700 Subject: [core-workflow] The peps repo has been migrated! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15 June 2016 at 15:56, Brett Cannon wrote: > Python's PEPs now officially live at https://github.com/python/peps . > > Thanks to Donald Stufft for the infrastructure stuff, Kushal Das for pushing > me at the PyCon US sprints to get this going, Senthil Kumaran for the > migration tool, and everyone else who has helped somehow in making this > happen. > > I'll be updating PEP 512 -- on GitHub! -- to reflect this. That will make > the devguide the next repo to migrate. Nice! This should let us simplify some of the distutils-sig workflows, since it will eliminate the "copy to hg.python.org" step. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia From solipsis at pitrou.net Thu Jun 16 05:16:33 2016 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:16:33 +0200 Subject: [core-workflow] The peps repo has been migrated! References: Message-ID: <20160616111633.142c8840@fsol> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:56:35 +0000 Brett Cannon wrote: > Python's PEPs now officially live at https://github.com/python/peps . > > Thanks to Donald Stufft for the infrastructure stuff, Kushal Das for > pushing me at the PyCon US sprints to get this going, Senthil Kumaran for > the migration tool, and everyone else who has helped somehow in making this > happen. > > I'll be updating PEP 512 -- on GitHub! -- to reflect this. That will make > the devguide the next repo to migrate. I might have missed something, but is there a test repo to test e.g. push permissions? I don't want to add a dummy changeset to the peps repo... Regards Antoine. From ianlee1521 at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 09:13:27 2016 From: ianlee1521 at gmail.com (Ian Lee) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 06:13:27 -0700 Subject: [core-workflow] The peps repo has been migrated! In-Reply-To: <20160616111633.142c8840@fsol> References: <20160616111633.142c8840@fsol> Message-ID: Not speaking from any sort of official position, but you could do a push to a separate branch that you deleted after you verify it worked. E.g. $ git clone https://github.com/python/peps.git $ cd peps $ git checkout -b foo # edit something $ git commit -a -m"test commit" $ git push origin foo # verify it worked through github website worked $ git push --delete origin foo Cheers, Ian On Thursday, June 16, 2016, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:56:35 +0000 > Brett Cannon > wrote: > > Python's PEPs now officially live at https://github.com/python/peps . > > > > Thanks to Donald Stufft for the infrastructure stuff, Kushal Das for > > pushing me at the PyCon US sprints to get this going, Senthil Kumaran for > > the migration tool, and everyone else who has helped somehow in making > this > > happen. > > > > I'll be updating PEP 512 -- on GitHub! -- to reflect this. That will make > > the devguide the next repo to migrate. > > I might have missed something, but is there a test repo to test e.g. > push permissions? I don't want to add a dummy changeset to the peps repo... > > Regards > > Antoine. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- ~ Ian Lee | IanLee1521 at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brett at python.org Thu Jun 16 12:09:58 2016 From: brett at python.org (Brett Cannon) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:09:58 +0000 Subject: [core-workflow] The peps repo has been migrated! In-Reply-To: <20160616111633.142c8840@fsol> References: <20160616111633.142c8840@fsol> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 at 02:16 Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:56:35 +0000 > Brett Cannon wrote: > > Python's PEPs now officially live at https://github.com/python/peps . > > > > Thanks to Donald Stufft for the infrastructure stuff, Kushal Das for > > pushing me at the PyCon US sprints to get this going, Senthil Kumaran for > > the migration tool, and everyone else who has helped somehow in making > this > > happen. > > > > I'll be updating PEP 512 -- on GitHub! -- to reflect this. That will make > > the devguide the next repo to migrate. > > I might have missed something, but is there a test repo to test e.g. > push permissions? I don't want to add a dummy changeset to the peps repo... > There's no need: if you can see https://github.com/orgs/python/teams/python-core then you have permissions (and for you personally, Antoine, I know you do since you're a team maintainer :) . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: