Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Release documents need updating #3448

Closed
munkm opened this issue Jul 21, 2021 · 7 comments · Fixed by #3806
Closed

Release documents need updating #3448

munkm opened this issue Jul 21, 2021 · 7 comments · Fixed by #3806
Assignees
Labels
infrastructure Related to CI, versioning, websites, organizational issues, etc
Milestone

Comments

@munkm
Copy link
Member

munkm commented Jul 21, 2021

Our release docs are out of date since we've updated our project infrastructure related to releases. We need to update the sections in the release docs to make sure these are clear.

@munkm munkm self-assigned this Jul 21, 2021
@munkm munkm added the infrastructure Related to CI, versioning, websites, organizational issues, etc label Jul 21, 2021
@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Member

This seems crucial to release yt 4.0.2, and even if it's not, I'd like to have the information somewhere.
@munkm do you think you'll get a chance to work on that in the near future ? Maybe you didn't intend to do it yourself, in which case I'm sorry that I'm putting this on you, I just don't know who exactly has the knowledge that's currently missing from our docs.

@stonnes
Copy link
Contributor

stonnes commented Feb 25, 2022

@neutrinoceros and @matthewturk I think in the future we should not unassign people who have assigned themselves without a written verification that it is ok (even better is if they unassign themselves!)

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Member

Madicken has explicitly stated that she wasn't able to work on yt for the time being (https://mail.python.org/archives/list/yt-dev@python.org/thread/4ROHTRUXH6PJJD7AHFLG4SDAD324EUUV/), which is why I took on the responsibility of unassigning her, and stepped in to try and resolve the issue.

@stonnes
Copy link
Contributor

stonnes commented Feb 25, 2022

Yeah, I see that. I think it is great that you stepped in and assigned yourself to resolve the issue since Madicken put herself in the fallow fields. I just don't think it was necessary to unassign her. I think this issue could still be moved forward and closed without actively removing someone--if I am wrong and issues cannot be closed without removing people, definitely let me know!

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Member

You're right, it's not blocking. I probably shouldn't have assigned myself instead, let alone Matt.
I don't think we have a clear policy for assignments actually, I would err on the side of not using them at all, following the advice given here https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/dont-lick-cookie

@stonnes
Copy link
Contributor

stonnes commented Feb 25, 2022

Ooh, interesting! This is probably worth a longer discussion among more than just you and me, but I do like the idea thrown out at the end that people should only self-assign when they are starting work on something. Would definitely require some re-alignment of our use of assignments, I think.

@stonnes
Copy link
Contributor

stonnes commented Feb 25, 2022

Okay, until that conversation happens about how yt should be using the assign feature, I am putting @munkm back on and she can stay or remove herself.

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros added this to the 4.3.0 milestone Oct 4, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
infrastructure Related to CI, versioning, websites, organizational issues, etc
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants