[petsc-dev] Our pull request work flow is terrible and horrible

[Matthew Knepley]

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Patrick Sanan <patrick.sanan at gmail.com>
wrote:

> One idea is to impose a stricter guideline that things on the bitbucket PR
> page are things that everyone is actively trying to merge. That way,
> maintainers can just look at the bottom of the list to see what's lagging,
> instead of having to to work up the list and try to remember which of the
> PRs are WIP or proposals or experiments or even abandoned ideas.
>
> This probably requires an itchier trigger finger on declining PRs which
> need substantial work.
>
> A related point is that (as happened with the last PR I made), if a big
> edit is performed after the original PR is made or even approved, then it's
> not always clear "whose court" the PR is in.
>

The only way to fix this, I think, is to assign PRs to people. That is the
only way petsc-maint works. I of course do not want
this because it will suck, but I cannot think of anything else.

  Matt


> Maybe it's better to just make a new PR in this situation. I'm not sure if
> bitbucket allows you to decline your own PR (I fear not) - that would make
> this easier.
>
> 2018-01-11 9:00 GMT-08:00 Smith, Barry F. <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov>:
>
>>
>>    what do people suggest to improve it.
>>
>>     We can't have valuable pieces of code going stale in there for months.
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
experiments lead.
-- Norbert Wiener

https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20180111/a24986c5/attachment.html>