Folks,
Have people had a chance to look at the new review tools on github? Do
we want to work these into our workflow? It looks like we can set it so
that PRs can only be merged via the web UI with at least one approve
review and no 'needs work' reviews if we want. My initial reaction is
we should try to use the review tools, but hold on on the engineering
control on merges until we have a better sense of what that would look like.
I'm not a fan of this new mechanism. One of the problems is that
sometimes one doesn't know at the outset whether one will be doing a
thorough review, or just starting to look and make a few comments. I
don't much like the automated comments it generates based on the review
checkbutton, either. Making this mechanism mandatory would be quite an
irritant for little or no benefit, I think.
Some automated operations are good. For example, if a "closes #1234" in
an obvious location in a PR causes #1234 to be closed when the PR is
merged, that's good. Unfortunately, I haven't figured out how this
works--it seems like sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
Presumably I just don't know the rule github is using. So here, a
better design would be a box in the PR specifically for linking in
"closes" issue numbers.
Thumbs-up emoji counts are not helpful; I need to look to see whose
thumb it is, and then I'm still left wondering exactly what was being
approved. And was it a thoughtful approval, or just a twitch?
So overall, with my usual curmudgeon's hat on, covering my small brain,
I favor keeping the automation simple, obvious, and fairly minimal. For
everything else, let's use normal human communications, not bots.
Has anyone looked at the 'projects' feature yet?
Haven't looked. Should I?
A suggestion from Nelle Varoquaux is to follow skimage/sklearn and on
review add a [mrg+N] to the title to help other devs find PRs that are
almost ready to merge, but need another set of eyes.
Aha! So that's what those are! The "N" is the number of eye-sets needed?
I don't object to having a few conventions like that. If it ends up
helping us cut down the open PR and issue counts, that would be great.
Conventions are better than bots.
Eric
···
On 2016/09/19 4:24 PM, Thomas Caswell wrote: