Update workflow in PEP 1

[berkerpeksag]

PEP 1 needs to be updated to reflect the new GitHub workflow. For example, the following part is now outdated. They can send a pull request on GitHub:

 Updates to existing PEPs also come in to [email protected].  Many PEP
 authors are not Python committers yet, so PEP editors do the commits for them.

[warsaw]

This is done now, right?

[berkerpeksag]

No, not really :) We still need to update the part I quoted for example: They can just send a pull request now.

[warsaw]

@berkerpeksag Okay! I reopened the issue.

[warsaw]

The PEP also says:

Following a discussion on python-ideas, the proposal should be sent as a
draft PEP to the PEP editors <[email protected]>.

Is there any objection to just accepting new draft PEPs as PRs too? We'll leave [email protected] around for questions, help, and such but I don't see much of a need of it for any workflow. It's barely used now as it is.

[gvanrossum]

+1, it's been made obsolete by the tracker and PR workflow. (I'd encourage
questions in the tracker too -- it's working great for mypy.)

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Barry Warsaw [email protected]
wrote:

The PEP also says:

Following a discussion on python-ideas, the proposal should be sent as a
draft PEP to the PEP editors [email protected].

Is there any objection to just accepting new draft PEPs as PRs too? We'll
leave [email protected] around for questions, help, and such but I don't
see much of a need of it for any workflow. It's barely used now as it is.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#38 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACwrMqLls9K9v8yweCbenpXmcXFtdp13ks5qzpiXgaJpZM4I-flC
.

--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

[warsaw]

+1. I think we should mostly discourage [email protected]. We can even assign PEP numbers by PR. We'll leave that address live though just in case someone wants to contact the editors semi-privately. Let me do an update to #116

[Rosuav]

Hmm. In principle I'm fine with that, as long as it's practical for everyone. For non-core-devs, the normal thing to do used to be to request a PEP number - is the new workflow going to be that every PEP author starts by picking a number and making sure there's no conflict, or do we modify the PR to pick a number?

[warsaw]

I would like to see people use an XXX number and we can either assign them a number via PR or modify the PR to assign a number.

[gvanrossum]

(Yeah, the new GitHub feature that lets PR reviewers edit the PR is great
for this!)

Personally I'm totally fine with retiring [email protected] or letting it
bounce a link to the README in the peps repo -- we can then update the
README with typical workflows. (E.g. to reserve a PEP number file an
issue, otherwise use XXX in the PR and allow the reviewers to edit your
branch.)

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Barry Warsaw [email protected]
wrote:

I would like to see people use an XXX number and we can either assign them
a number via PR or modify the PR to assign a number.

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#38 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACwrMnLnbQpxV8DhKsXFQj1Ya5f7O5Buks5qzpxBgaJpZM4I-flC
.

--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

[Rosuav]

Yeah. Has anyone used the "project admins may tweak the PR" workflow? I'm thinking something along the lines of:

1. PEP author clones peps repo, creates pep-xxx.rst, and creates a PR.
2. An editor checks the file for structural errors and other issues, and if all looks okay, modifies the PR with a second commit that renames pep-xxx.rst to pep-1234.rst.
3. Squash commit this PR onto master.

[Rosuav]

And... Guido's post and mine crossed. Sounds like you have something similar in mind.

[warsaw]

+1