[Twisted-Python] two minor things

[Glyph]

These are mostly for Craig but they're relevant to everyone, so I am sending it to the mailing list. I don't know if these have been properly written down as part of a policy.

1. Please don't assign reviews normally.

If someone reviews your tickets, don't punish them by crushing them with all the other tickets you have :). The point of having a single review queue for all reviewers is that the responsibility should be diffused and lots of people should be doing reviews. You can always ask someone to review your tickets, of course, but assigning them suggests to other reviewers that they won't be able to do a complete job and that they should leave it to the assignee. Assigning should be reserved for cases where either the original reviewer did a really huge review and you'd like a re-review from the same person to ensure that you fully understood it, or the person in question has some specialized knowledge because you're adding test coverage or documentation to untested/undocumented code that they wrote and you want to make sure you're getting it right.

2. The branch-naming convention puts the ticket number at the _end_ of the branch name.

For example, foo-1234, not 1234-foo. If we re-add the automation to recognize branch names and update the 'branch' field in trac, getting this consistent will be important.

Thanks!

-glyph

[Craig Rodrigues]

Post by Glyph
2. The branch-naming convention puts the ticket number at the _end_ of the branch name.
For example, foo-1234, not 1234-foo. If we re-add the automation to
recognize branch names and update the 'branch' field in trac, getting this
consistent will be important.

The example given here:
https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/wiki/UltimateQualityDevelopmentSystem

is opposite of what you just described.

--
Craig

[Adi Roiban]

Post by Glyph
2. The branch-naming convention puts the ticket number at the _end_ of the branch name.
For example, foo-1234, not 1234-foo. If we re-add the automation to
recognize branch names and update the 'branch' field in trac, getting this
consistent will be important.

AFAIK we agreed that 1234-foo is a better convention... but just that with
the SVN to Git migration we did nothing.

I was the one pushing for this change, and to my defense, Amber was also
happy with the change.

I hope that when we add the automation, it will work with both methods...
but hopefully people will prefer 1234.

For me is easier to auto-complete branches based on id.

Cheers,
Adi

[Glyph]

Post by Glyph
2. The branch-naming convention puts the ticket number at the _end_ of the branch name.
For example, foo-1234, not 1234-foo. If we re-add the automation to recognize branch names and update the 'branch' field in trac, getting this consistent will be important.
AFAIK we agreed that 1234-foo is a better convention... but just that with the SVN to Git migration we did nothing.
I was the one pushing for this change, and to my defense, Amber was also happy with the change.
I hope that when we add the automation, it will work with both methods... but hopefully people will prefer 1234.
For me is easier to auto-complete branches based on id.

If we are going to change this, I would really appreciate it if someone in favor of the change would write a script to re-name the literally thousands of outstanding branches to the new convention, so we don't have a random mix. Luckily git makes this considerably more light weight, since it just changes the name of the pointer and doesn't create new revisions :-).

-glyph

[Tristan Seligmann]

Post by Glyph
If we are going to change this, I would really appreciate it if someone in
favor of the change would write a script to re-name the literally thousands
of outstanding branches to the new convention, so we don't have a random
mix. Luckily git makes this considerably more light weight, since it just
changes the name of the pointer and doesn't create new revisions :-).

I think most of the "outstanding branches" are actually merged, and need to
be deleted. So maybe a script to do that first...? (Sorry, I'm not likely
to get around to this any time soon)

[Amber "Hawkie" Brown]

Post by Glyph
If we are going to change this, I would really appreciate it if someone in favor of the change would write a script to re-name the literally thousands of outstanding branches to the new convention, so we don't have a random mix. Luckily git makes this considerably more light weight, since it just changes the name of the pointer and doesn't create new revisions :-).
I think most of the "outstanding branches" are actually merged, and need to be deleted. So maybe a script to do that first...? (Sorry, I'm not likely to get around to this any time soon)

I might take a stab at this... firstly we want to delete the merged ones, and then migrate the rest.

- Amber