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

[Patrick Sanan]

2018-01-11 22:36 GMT-08:00 Smith, Barry F. <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov>:

>
>
> > On Jan 11, 2018, at 11:40 AM, 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.
>
>   Very valid point. Perhaps we could have some way to convert the
> "proposals" to Issues so they are not lost but no longer clog the pull
> requests. Or the originator of the pull request (i.e. Jed) could kindly
> remove the pull request by converting it to some other archival form. Or at
> least label the pull request as Archival as opposed to active.
>
> Any reason to not just create/select an issue, assign it to someone, and
include the relevant branch name in the issue description?

>   Barry
>
> >
> > 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. 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20180112/1f324d74/attachment.html>