Workflow automation proposal updates

- merge gating makes it easier for others to do continuous
  integration against the CPython development branches
- interesting IRC chat with the CTO of RhodeCode last week,
  updated accordingly
This commit is contained in:
Nick Coghlan 2014-03-04 21:15:03 +10:00
parent fc186bfdde
commit 39462faa5a
1 changed files with 32 additions and 4 deletions

View File

@ -232,6 +232,9 @@ organisations that qualify for one of RhodeCode's exemption categories
(in the case of ``hg.python.org``, the relevant category is "public open
source project").
The RhodeCode developers have also expressed interest in helping out with
ensuring a python.org RhodeCode deployment is successful.
.. _RhodeCode: https://rhodecode.com/
.. _business source license: https://rhodecode.com/licenses
@ -411,13 +414,21 @@ better to enable them to spend their time and effort on interacting with
the other sprint participants than it is on things that are sufficiently
mechanical that a computer can (and should) handle them.
Finally, with most of the ways to make a mistake when committing a change
automated out of existence, there are substantially fewer new things to
With most of the ways to make a mistake when committing a change
automated out of existence, there are also substantially fewer new things to
learn when a contributor is nominated to become a core developer. This
should have a dual benefit, both in making the existing core developers more
comfortable with granting that additional level of responsibility, and in
making new contributors more comfortable with exercising it.
Finally, a more stable default branch in CPython makes it easier for
other Python projects to conduct continuous integration directly against the
main repo, rather than having to wait until we get into the release
candidate phase. At the moment, setting up such a system isn't particularly
attractive, as it would need to include an additional mechanism to wait
until CPython's own Buildbot fleet had indicate that the build was in a
usable state.
Technical Challenges
====================
@ -434,8 +445,18 @@ infrastructure.
User account management
-----------------------
Ideally, RhodeCode's user account management would be integrated with
the existing account management in Roundup.
Ideally we'd be able to offer a single account that spans all python.org
services, including RhodeCode, Roundup/Rietveld, PyPI and the back end for
the new python.org site, but actually implementing that would be a distinct
infrastructure project, independent of this PEP.
A potentially simpler near term solution would be if RhodeCode's user
account management could be integrated with the existing account management
in Roundup, similar to what was done for Rietveld. However, if that also
turns out to be impractical in the near term, we would merely end up with
another identity silo to be integrated at a later date, suggesting that
this doesn't need to be considered a blocker for an initial RhodeCode
deployment.
Preserving existing SSH access and links for Mercurial repositories
@ -784,6 +805,9 @@ in the discussions (Guido van Rossum is the creator of Rietveld, and these
workflow changes are not expected to require any significant changes in
Roundup or Buildbot).
Unfortunately, the lead RhodeCode developers aren't able to attend PyCon US
this year, or we would have invited them, too.
Acknowledgements
================
@ -793,6 +817,10 @@ feedback on a preliminary draft of this proposal, and to James and Monty
Taylor for additional technical feedback following publication of the
initial draft.
Thanks also to Marcin Kuzminski (CTO of RhodeCode) for getting in touch to
express their interest in helping to ensure the success of a RhodeCode
deployment if we choose to proceed down that path.
Copyright
=========