[kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

Rajeev Bhatta techie.rajeev at yahoo.in
Mon Sep 21 10:38:44 UTC 2015


+1

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 14:05:01 -0400
Martin Klapetek <martin.klapetek at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Eike Hein <hein at kde.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 09/19/2015 07:49 PM, Martin Klapetek wrote:
> > > We wouldn't get no lock-in though. Not even remotely. It will
> > > simply be another path for an incoming patch. If the patch in
> > > question ends up on Phabricator and gets reviewed on Phabricator
> > > and merged from Phabricator, it is no different than the patch
> > > initially arriving by
> > email,
> > > irc/paste etc. Just a different input route.
> >
> > That doesn't address Sune's concern though. If you
> > get a patch by email you can reply by email; the
> > comm channel stays the same. Ditto IRC. If you file
> > a pull req on GitHub and it gets imported into Phab
> > which you don't have an account for yet and can't
> > interact with using the same client (git, or the
> > website you were using) you were already using, you
> > are inserting a hump in that. The requestee wouldn't
> > even get emails about review comments unless the bot
> > does complicated steps like trying to use the GitHub
> > API to read out an account email (if it even can).
> >
> 
> You'd have the email from the commit already though.
> 
> The bot could be extended (over time, even) to be capable of posting
> comments back, even a simple "there's a new comment on your patch
> at <link>". If the user will care, s/he will care. If not, then it
> ends up as hundreds of already unattended patches on reviewboard,
> where the original submitter didn't respond to questions and/or
> didn't update the patch.
> 
> A concrete example: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105932/
> 
> Patch from 2012 with open questions/issues from a newcomer(?), left
> unattended. Having the same on Phabricator with the source being
> github would be no different, would it? And there _will_ be patches
> left to rot on Phabricator anyway, just like hundreds of them right
> now on Reviewboard.
> 
> Auto-import is a slight improvement over auto-reject
> > on the "it snubs people" front, but it's not a big
> > one and it creates a lot of practical concerns. Some
> > of those could be addressed with more code, if some-
> > one writes it - but then it should be written and
> > tested and evluated before we enable that channel.
> >
> 
> Sure. It's _a_ solution. I don't claim it's a perfect one, but it is
> one.
> 
> Cheers
> -- 
> Martin Klapetek | KDE Developer


-- 
Rajeev Bhatta <techie.rajeev at yahoo.in>



More information about the kde-community mailing list