Mariatta
GitHub
parent
7232981100
commit
4a33866e32
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,377 @@
|
|||
PEP: 581
|
||||
Title: Using GitHub Issues for CPython
|
||||
Version: $Revision$
|
||||
Last-Modified: $Date$
|
||||
Author: Mariatta Wijaya <mariatta@python.org>
|
||||
Discussions-To: ``#pep581`` stream in zulip
|
||||
Status: Draft
|
||||
Type: Process
|
||||
Content-Type: text/x-rst
|
||||
Created: 20-Jun-2018
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Abstract
|
||||
========
|
||||
|
||||
This PEP outlines the steps required to migrate Python's issue tracker
|
||||
from Roundup to using GitHub Issues.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Rationale
|
||||
=========
|
||||
|
||||
CPython's development moved to GitHub on February 2017. All other projects within
|
||||
The PSF's organization are hosted on GitHub and are using GitHub issues.
|
||||
CPython is still using Roundup as the issue tracker in bugs.python.org (bpo) [1]_.
|
||||
|
||||
Why GitHub
|
||||
----------
|
||||
|
||||
GitHub has a lot of nice features readily available out of the box, that are not
|
||||
currently available in Roundup / bpo.
|
||||
|
||||
- APIs we can use to build integrations and automations. There are various existing
|
||||
integrations and applications available from GitHub Marketplace to help with
|
||||
our workflow. New applications are easily installed and enabled. In addition,
|
||||
we've had great success with building our own GitHub bots, like miss-islington [14]_,
|
||||
bedevere [15]_, and the-knights-who-say-ni [16]_.
|
||||
|
||||
- Ability to embed/drag and drop screenshots, debug log files into GitHub pull
|
||||
requests and issues.
|
||||
|
||||
- Administrators and core developers can edit issues comments and pull requests.
|
||||
|
||||
- Ability to reply to issues and pull request conversations via email.
|
||||
|
||||
- It supports two factor authentication.
|
||||
|
||||
- It supports markdown and emoji.
|
||||
|
||||
- It has a preview tab, so we can see how our comment will be rendered, before
|
||||
actually posting.
|
||||
|
||||
- It supports voting (reactions).
|
||||
|
||||
- It supports permalink [2]_, allowing us to quote and copy paste
|
||||
source code easily.
|
||||
|
||||
- Core developers don't have to maintain the issue infrastructure/site, giving
|
||||
us more time to focus on the development of Python.
|
||||
|
||||
- We can automatically close issues when a PR has been merged [3]_.
|
||||
|
||||
- Lowers the barrier to contribution. With more than 28 million users, an open
|
||||
source contributor is more likely to already have an account, and familiar
|
||||
with GitHub interface, making it easier to start contributing.
|
||||
|
||||
- Email notifications contain metadata [4]_, integrated with GMail, and
|
||||
allows you to systematically filter emails.
|
||||
|
||||
- Provides additional privacy such as offering the user a choice to hide an
|
||||
email address yet still allow communication with the user through @-mentions.
|
||||
|
||||
Issues with bpo / Roundup
|
||||
-------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
- Less than five people maintain bpo. Some of them are core developers.
|
||||
|
||||
- It is in Mercurial. Without any CI available, it puts heavy burden on existing
|
||||
(few) maintainers in terms of reviewing, testing, and applying patches.
|
||||
|
||||
- At its current state, it is not equipped to accept lots of contributions from
|
||||
people who aren't already familiar with the code base.
|
||||
|
||||
- The upstream Roundup is in Mercurial. There is an open discussion about
|
||||
moving the source code of bpo to GitHub [5]_. If the source code of
|
||||
bpo does move to GitHub, it will become difficult to update patches from
|
||||
upstream. But as long as it is in Mercurial, it is be difficult to maintain
|
||||
and onboard new contributors.
|
||||
|
||||
- The user interface needs update and redesign. It will require UX/UI research
|
||||
to keep it up to date with current web standards, including accessibility.
|
||||
|
||||
- Email address is exposed. There is no choice to mask it.
|
||||
|
||||
- There is no REST API available. There is an open issue in Roundup for adding
|
||||
REST API [6]_. Last activity was in 2016.
|
||||
|
||||
- It sends a number of unnecessary emails and notifications, and it is difficult,
|
||||
if not impossible, to configure. An example is the nosy email, where we get
|
||||
email notification whenever someone added themselves as "nosy".
|
||||
An issue has been filed in upstream Roundup about this since 2012 with
|
||||
little traction [7]_.
|
||||
|
||||
- Creating an account has been a hassle. We've had reports when people have
|
||||
trouble creating accounts or logging in.
|
||||
|
||||
Why not GitLab
|
||||
--------------
|
||||
|
||||
Had we migrated to GitLab instead of GitHub in 2017, this PEP would have been
|
||||
titled "Using GitLab Issues for CPython".
|
||||
|
||||
Why not other issue tracker
|
||||
---------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Using another issue tracker will require yet another learning curve, of having
|
||||
to learn and get used to a different interface. We'll also need to learn and
|
||||
figure out how to build the integrations with GitHub.
|
||||
|
||||
By using GitHub issues, where the CPython source code is currently hosted, where
|
||||
pull requests are taking place, we'll be providing consistent experience to
|
||||
contributors and maintainers, and not having to jump from one interface to another.
|
||||
|
||||
Why not focus on improving Roundup / bpo
|
||||
----------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
GitHub has many features we like that are already available. We still need to
|
||||
build out additional integrations and update our bots, but this is something
|
||||
we already know how to do.
|
||||
|
||||
In order to really improve Roundup / bpo, it needs to first migrate to GitHub,
|
||||
add CI and bots. As I understand it, there is hesitation because upstream Roundup
|
||||
is still in Mercurial. Someone more familiar with Roundup / bpo needs
|
||||
to champion this effort. (I'm not volunteering, I'm sorry).
|
||||
|
||||
I believe the effort of creating and maintaining GitHub integrations and bots
|
||||
is much less than the effort needed to get Roundup up to speed and then to continue
|
||||
maintaining it.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Migration Plan
|
||||
==============
|
||||
|
||||
Backup of GitHub data
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
This effort has been started and being tracked as an issue in core-workflow
|
||||
[8]_. We're using GitHub Migrations API [9]_
|
||||
to download GitHub data for CPython on daily basis. The archives will be
|
||||
dropped in an S3 bucket.
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks to Ernest W. Durbin III for working on this.
|
||||
|
||||
Update the CLA host
|
||||
-------------------
|
||||
|
||||
At the moment the CLA is hosted within bpo. It needs to be updated such that
|
||||
signing the CLA does not require a bpo account, and it should be hosted outside
|
||||
of the bpo.
|
||||
|
||||
The current CLA process itself is not ideal. Currently contributors to
|
||||
devguide, peps, and core-workflow need to sign a CLA, and it requires a bpo
|
||||
account. A bpo account should not be required for those projects.
|
||||
|
||||
Currently the CLA process involves real human to manually check the records.
|
||||
Question: Will it be possible to completely automate the CLA process, so
|
||||
it does not require human intervention?
|
||||
|
||||
Create labels for issue triage
|
||||
------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
In bpo, we currently have the following fields for each issues:
|
||||
|
||||
Type: behavior, crash, compile error, resource usage, security, performance, enhancement.
|
||||
Components: 2to3, Argument Clinic, asyncio, Build, Cross-build, ctypes, ...
|
||||
Priority: release blocker, deferred blocker, critical, high, normal, low
|
||||
|
||||
We will create the corresponding labels::
|
||||
|
||||
type-behavior, type-crash, type-compile error, type-resource usage, ...
|
||||
|
||||
components-2to3, components-argument clinic, components-asyncio, ...
|
||||
|
||||
priority-release blocker, priority-deferred blocker, priority-critical, ...
|
||||
|
||||
In addition, we'll create ``needs triage`` label.
|
||||
|
||||
Create issue templates
|
||||
----------------------
|
||||
|
||||
We will create an issue template and add the following headers::
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
Type: behavior | crash | compile error | resource usage (choose one)
|
||||
Components: 2to3 | Argument Clinic | asyncio | Build | ... (can select more than one)
|
||||
Priority: release blocker | deferred blocker | critical | ...
|
||||
Needs backport to: 2.7 | 3.6 | 3.7
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The idea is to allow the issue creator to help us triage the issue.
|
||||
The above values are pre-filled in the template. Issue creator will remove texts
|
||||
that do not apply to their issue.
|
||||
|
||||
Based on the above headers, bedevere-bot can apply the necessary labels to the
|
||||
issue. If issue creator did not supply the above headers, the bot will apply
|
||||
``needs triage`` label. At that point it will require a core developer to
|
||||
properly label the issue.
|
||||
|
||||
We can also take advantage of GitHub's multiple issue template feature.
|
||||
|
||||
Updates to bedevere
|
||||
-------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Bedevere-bot will need to be updated to recognize the issue headers described above,
|
||||
and apply the proper labels.
|
||||
|
||||
Bedevere-bot can also copy over the labels to pull requests that correspond to
|
||||
the issue.
|
||||
|
||||
Update the devguide
|
||||
-------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Provide explanation in the devguide about new issue workflow and triage labels.
|
||||
|
||||
Add a button in bpo to migrate the issue to GitHub
|
||||
--------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
This will require actual update to the bpo. But I believe this effort needed
|
||||
is much less than a complete overhaul.
|
||||
|
||||
We will create a button in bpo, that will copy over the issue description
|
||||
and associated comments into a GitHub issue.
|
||||
|
||||
We should not be moving all open issues to GitHub. Issues with little or no
|
||||
activity should just be closed. Issues with no decision made for years should
|
||||
just be closed.
|
||||
|
||||
If a core developer is still interested in the issue, they can indicate so in
|
||||
the bpo issue, and later use the button to migrate it over to GitHub.
|
||||
|
||||
Make bpo readonly
|
||||
-----------------
|
||||
|
||||
This should be the final step. Once we start using GitHub issues, make bpo
|
||||
readonly, not shut it down.
|
||||
Do not accept new registrations. Do not allow comments or issues to be created.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
TBD and additional concerns
|
||||
===========================
|
||||
|
||||
Expert index
|
||||
------------
|
||||
|
||||
At the moment, there is a mechanism to add people in expert index automatically
|
||||
added to the nosy list. We need to replicate this functionality.
|
||||
|
||||
A GitHub account should not be a requirement
|
||||
--------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Back when it was discussed about moving the CPython codebase from Mercurial
|
||||
to GitHub [10]_ and [11]_, it was brought up that
|
||||
we need to still allow uploading patches in bpo, and that a GitHub account should
|
||||
not be a requirement in order to contribute to Python.
|
||||
|
||||
If bpo is made readonly, we'll need to come up with a different solution to allow
|
||||
folks to contribute when they don't own a GitHub account.
|
||||
|
||||
One solution is to create a new "python-issues" mailing list, similar to
|
||||
docs@python.org [12]_ mailing list, to allow people to submit their issues
|
||||
there.
|
||||
|
||||
Related to this, since the migration to GitHub in 2017, I recall one case
|
||||
[13]_ where we had one contributor who submitted patch to Mercurial, and
|
||||
refused to create a GitHub account. Because of this, our bot is unable to detect
|
||||
whether the have signed CLA. Another person had volunteered to upload his
|
||||
patch to GitHub. But we still require both people to sign the CLA.
|
||||
|
||||
That particular situation was complicated. It took up five core developers time
|
||||
to investigate and manually check the CLA, causing confusion.
|
||||
|
||||
Trim off the "Components" list
|
||||
------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Is the current "components" list still making sense and relevant?
|
||||
Can we shorten the list?
|
||||
|
||||
Priority list
|
||||
-------------
|
||||
|
||||
Is the current "priority" list useful? Nick Coghlan noted that perhaps only
|
||||
``release blocker`` and ``deferred blocker`` are useful.
|
||||
|
||||
Further questions and discussions
|
||||
---------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
There is a dedicated `#pep581 <https://python.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/130206-pep581>`_
|
||||
stream in python.zulipchat.com.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Acknowledgements
|
||||
================
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks to Guido van Rossum, Brett Cannon, and Nick Coghlan who were consulted
|
||||
in the early stage and research of this PEP. Their feedback, concerns, input,
|
||||
and ideas have been valuable.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
References
|
||||
==========
|
||||
|
||||
.. [1] bugs.python.org
|
||||
(https://bugs.python.org/)
|
||||
|
||||
.. [2] Getting permanent links to files
|
||||
https://help.github.com/articles/getting-permanent-links-to-files/
|
||||
|
||||
.. [3] Closing issues using keywords
|
||||
(https://help.github.com/articles/closing-issues-using-keywords/)
|
||||
|
||||
.. [4] About GitHub email notifications
|
||||
(https://help.github.com/articles/about-email-notifications/)
|
||||
|
||||
.. [5] Consider whether or not to migrate bugs.python.org source code
|
||||
to GitHub repo
|
||||
https://github.com/python/bugs.python.org/issues/2
|
||||
|
||||
.. [6] Roundup issue 2550734 Expose roundup via a RESTful interface
|
||||
(http://issues.roundup-tracker.org/issue2550734)
|
||||
|
||||
.. [7] Roundup issue 2550742 Do not send email by default when adding
|
||||
or removing oneself from the Nosy list
|
||||
(http://issues.roundup-tracker.org/issue2550742)
|
||||
|
||||
.. [8] Backup GitHub information
|
||||
(https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/20)
|
||||
|
||||
.. [9] GitHub Migrations API
|
||||
(https://developer.github.com/v3/migrations/orgs/)
|
||||
|
||||
.. [10] Python-committers email
|
||||
(https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2015-December/003642.html)
|
||||
|
||||
.. [11] Python-committers email
|
||||
(https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2015-December/003645.html)
|
||||
|
||||
.. [12] docs mailing list
|
||||
(https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/docs)
|
||||
|
||||
.. [13] CPython GitHub Pull request 1505
|
||||
(https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/1505)
|
||||
|
||||
.. [14] miss-islington
|
||||
(https://github.com/python/miss-islington)
|
||||
|
||||
.. [15] bedevere
|
||||
(https://github.com/python/bedevere)
|
||||
|
||||
.. [16] the-knights-who-say-ni
|
||||
(https://github.com/python/the-knights-who-say-ni)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Copyright
|
||||
=========
|
||||
|
||||
This document has been placed in the public domain.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
..
|
||||
Local Variables:
|
||||
mode: indented-text
|
||||
indent-tabs-mode: nil
|
||||
sentence-end-double-space: t
|
||||
fill-column: 70
|
||||
coding: utf-8
|
||||
End:
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue