+1 to Nic's comment.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 12:46 PM Nic Crane wrote:
> I have no specific comments on the what/how, other than to say I'm strongly
> in favour of some kind of system being implemented and tried out, as I
> currently rely on manual processes that are inefficient and make it easy
I have no specific comments on the what/how, other than to say I'm strongly
in favour of some kind of system being implemented and tried out, as I
currently rely on manual processes that are inefficient and make it easy to
miss PRs which need looking at.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 at 18:16, Andrew Lamb w
A process that we use in arrow-rs / arrow-datafusion, which is less
precise but seems to be working well enough at the moment, is :
1. Mark PRs that have received feedback and need more work prior to merge
from `Ready to Review` back to `Draft`
2. Ask the author to set it back to "ready to revie
Hi Raul,
Since I'm the one who proposed that we reuse CPython's existing workflow
infrastructure, it follows logically that I'm in favour :-)
I'm a CPython core developer myself (though inactive lately), I will add
that this workflow is really easing the work of reviewing PRs, as it
makes
Hi,
I would like to start working on some automation for our PRs and issues
workflows.
I've heard, and have experienced, the frustration of spending a lot of time
on our issue tracker and our PRs to follow up on their status.
It is very hard to keep track of which PRs and issues are waiting for u
