I see. I'm not privy to how pull requests are handled on that side. I was under the impression that Bitbucket could detect __only__ the changes between the head of https://bitbucket.org/jython/jython and the head of whatever branch I sent a pull request for, as I took care that said branch is always isolated to the feature/issue at hand. The bookmarks are there for me to keep track of different heads in one repo, but they are all their own feature "branches" per se.

~/santoso

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Jim Baker <report@bugs.jython.org> wrote:

Jim Baker added the comment:

That would be easier to work with on my end, but just marginally so. It's up to you - a missing committed file is rare and easy to spot with any level of testing. However, it should mean we could merge in the changesets of the PRs, and bitbucket should be able to detect this and mark the PR as merged. Should. I have seen bitbucket in fact not do this. But after all, https://bitbucket.org/jython/jython is a mirror, so that it even sort of works is perhaps the real thing we should appreciate! ;)

The lack of any CI on PRs is a bigger issue; that we are running PRs on bitbucket means it requires more integration work.

I think we need to revisit this whole process post 2.7.0, possibly using github and travis CI to frontend hg.python.org/jython, given that it's just a final push anyway and we are not using any of the branch support at hg.python.org other than for 2.7 vs 2.5 - it's just too heavyweight/error prone. Even better workflows as seen in OpenStack would be fantastic.

CPython is looking at a completely revamped workflow, but it's very early in the planning process: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/

_______________________________________
Jython tracker <report@bugs.jython.org>
<http://bugs.jython.org/issue2146>
_______________________________________