FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending |
URL:
| Home
Tools: [Download Repo ZIP]   [Original HTTPS Page]

Don't require the Python org to mention someone by dstufft · Pull Request #393 · python/cpython · GitHub

Repository navigation

Don't require the Python org to mention someone - #393

Merged
dstufft merged 1 commit into
python:masterfrom
dstufft:no-required-orgs
Mar 2, 2017
Merged

dstufft merged 1 commit into
python:masterfrom
dstufft:no-required-orgs

Conversation

dstufft commented Mar 2, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

NOTE: We may want to instead deploy our own bot that is a member of the Python org and has facebookarchive/mention-bot#212 added.

Previously we configured the mention-bot to only mention people who are members of the Python organization. However, this doesn't currently work if members don't have their membership public. Instead we will configure mention-bot to poke anyone, even non-members.

Previously we configured the mention-bot to only mention people who are
members of the Python organization. However, this doesn't currently work
if members don't have their membership public. Instead we will configure
mention-bot to poke anyone, even non-members.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@dstufft, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @brettcannon and @berkerpeksag to be potential reviewers.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Or we could ask them to make their membership status public :) There is already a public list of core developers so I don't think there is a privacy concern here.

dstufft commented Mar 2, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Yea. This just seemed easier than tracking down 88 people and bugging them to fiddle with their Github settings.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

We could just send an email to python-committers list.

dstufft commented Mar 2, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Ah yes, that's true!

alex commented Mar 2, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I think this is also a good idea, because it encourages "sometimes contributors" to get more actively involved.

dstufft commented Mar 2, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Yea, I've been going back and forth on it. For the time being at least I think we should try this out and see how it works. If we decide we really want to limit it, then we should probably at a minimum run our own bot to sidestep the private member issue completely.

vstinner left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

Hum, the workflow is moving too fast. I just noticed a new "mention-bot" bot. Can you please give us time to experiment the new feature, before make it more noisy? (ex: test current config during 1 week)

vstinner commented Mar 2, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Even if I asked to wait, I concur with Alex "because it encourages "sometimes contributors" to get more actively involved." :-)

dstufft commented Mar 2, 2017 via email

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I agree with @dstufft that requiring the Python org right now is not necessary as the vast majority of code is only from core devs due to the code's history. Eventually we will want to add back in the check when we have more code with proper attribution from git, but that will probably take years before it's a real issue.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

And in terms of the mention bot, this is an experiment that might be turned off. Basically this was the last "maybe/maybe not" idea that was on the table before the team review of the workflow and where things sit, so trying it for a week now seemed like the best idea prior to asking python-committers what is or is not working. (Plus turning off the bot is simple.)

dstufft commented Mar 2, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I'm not sure the specific procedures here now. It seems @Haypo has -1'd this PR, but not for the specific content of the PR just about the idea of tweaking it right now or not. Should I merge this or wait?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@dstufft I actually don't know what @Haypo wants because he said " the workflow is moving too fast" but then said "I concur with Alex".

Since the bot is on and not going away today, I say go ahead and merge since no one, including Victor, seems to think the tweak is bad for the bot itself.

dstufft merged commit cdf037c into python:master Mar 2, 2017

dstufft commented Mar 2, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Done!

dstufft deleted the no-required-orgs branch March 2, 2017 22:48

vstinner commented Mar 3, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@brettcannon: "@dstufft I actually don't know what @Haypo wants"

I fear that mention-bot will start spamming people who don't want to get notified by all these new CPython PR. We should help these people to unsubscribed or be blacklisted. Maybe write an email to python-dev to announce mention-bot and explain how to unsubscribe? At least, you already partially did that on the python-committers list, thank you for that!

In the meanwhile, the quick & hard way to work around spam is to mute the whole cpython project.

dstufft commented Mar 3, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Or block the mention-bot too: https://github.com/mention-bot/how-to-unsubscribe, although adding to the black list is better.

This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants


Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL