-
pep.
jonas’, do you have a list of things you'd like to see done by editors, I'm thinking tooling mostly
-
jonas’
registry
-
pep.
Or infra
-
jonas’
registry
-
pep.
yeah registry
-
jonas’
xeps themselves are manageable
-
jonas’
it’s currently blocking on iteam
-
jonas’
AFAIK
-
pep.
I know, so it's not in my power really :/
-
jonas’
you can do editorial work on the registries
-
jonas’
like checking the content of the XMLs against the XEPs
-
jonas’
they haven’t been updated in at least three years
-
pep.
Ok so tooling for that would be a thing to do
-
jonas’
I don’t think you can do tooling for that
-
jonas’
but go ahead
-
pep.
Just curious
-
jonas’
one could try to scrape the registry submissions from the documents
-
jonas’
but that sounds error-prone
-
pep.
What else?
-
jonas’
do it manually
-
pep.
I mean what else could use tooling
-
jonas’
I don’t think one can create tooling for this which won’t fail silently or have lots of false positives
-
jonas’
I don’t know
-
jonas’
I’m happy with the current tooling
-
pep.
k
-
jonas’
except that I’d like to automate email sending, but that mostly requires infrastructure
-
jonas’
or faster build processes, but that also requires infrastructure
-
jonas’
I fix most pain points in the tooling myself
-
jonas’
I should proablby commit my scripts to create tags though
-
jonas’
there are a few nice-to-haves
-
jonas’
I guess
-
jonas’
like a bot which analyses new PRs and automatically assigns labels (ProtoXEP, Needs Council, Needs Author, Needs Board)
-
pep.
Yeah that's also something I wanted
-
jonas’
something which creates and maintains a todo list for editors, because it’s not always clear what needs to be done
-
jonas’
and my attempt at introducing Github Projects for that was shot down
-
pep.
yeah
-
jonas’
which is a shame, because they even got more automation for those nowadays
-
pep.
shot down by whom?
-
jonas’
someone from the Editor team
-
jonas’
check the commit history
-
jonas’
of README.md
-
pep.
ok
-
pep.
Well now that you're managing editors almost by yourself..
-
pep.
I'm not personally against it
-
jonas’
I also effectively was back then
-
pep.
That would tie us even more to github, but I don't see us moving any time soon as much as I would like it
-
jonas’
for what reason?
-
pep.
me wanting to move?
-
jonas’
yes
-
pep.
I had that clear in mind some time ago. I'd say one of the biggest reason now is because I'm generally not fond of big hubs
-
jonas’
we don’t have the resources to host our own.
-
pep.
I'm aware of that, which is why I'm saying I don't see us moving to that
-
jonas’
so there’s no reason to not make use of the platform we currently have
-
pep.
We agree
-
jonas’
right
-
Kev
jonas’: The XSF is in GSoC this year. I wonder if one could wrangle a XEP management platform as a project
-
Kev
The email automation thing I think can be done with 'moderate' ease (hours of coding rather than weeks), by recording the last-announced versions of everything and the current versions, and sending emails on container startup if they differ. But I'm not volunteering, I'm afraid.
-
pep.
I don't think that's a good idea. GSoC takes quite some time for mentors if done properly, more than if we were to do it ourselves
-
jonas’
Kev, the email thing is essentially just a webhook and two lines of code. or one line of code if you do it on the XSF server which knows when stuff has happened either way.
-
jonas’
but frankly, email sending is least of my concernsn