Home Original page

[python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

Eric V. Smith eric at trueblade.com
Tue May 2 13:24:22 EDT 2017 
On 5/2/17 10:07 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Tue, 02 May 2017 09:36:02 +0200, "M.-A. Lemburg" <mal at egenix.com> wrote:
>> On 02.05.2017 04:25, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>> On 2 May 2017 at 08:32, Christian Heimes <christian at python.org> wrote:
>>>> This brings me to my questions
>>>>
>>>> 1) Should we try to move discussion back to BPO or are we fine with
>>>> having major decisions just in Github PRs?
>>>>
>>>> 2) How can we retain enough information on BPO to keep it useful as
>>>> research database for past decisions?
>>>
>>> It's OK to have the discussions on GitHub, but one of the
>>> responsibilities of reviewers is to ensure that significant design
>>> decisions are summarised on the related tracker issue for future
>>> reference.
>>
>> I don't think that's a good idea, since the core devs then
>> have to check what's good discussion to have on Github PRs
>> and what not.
>>
>> IMO, it's much easier for everyone to just always point people
>> to BPO for discussions and keep PRs reserved for code reviews.
>
> I agree with Mark-Andre here.  It will take effort on our part to
> make our culture be "discuss on BPO", but it will produce a much
> superior history to what github PRs produce, so I think it is worth it.

I agree with David and MAL. github PR's should replace Rietveld for code 
reviews, and should not replace BPO for discussions.

Eric.
More information about the python-committers mailing list