It makes my email box filled with comments which are not very interesting
Yes it does, otherwise how would we know that pull request has a signed cla? Manually look it up?
If we don’t have a 100% confirmed cla we cannot even look at the request.
And the state is overwritten, after some time, by the build status. So adding a message to the stream works best for history and tracking.
If it is bothersome, I suggest setting up an email filter to block all emails containing “discoursebot”.
I thought @Nick was going to change it so it only responds if the CLA was not signed?
@kid0m4n keep in mind, we tried going the travis route but the message clashed with travis - there is a bug on Github that needs addressing.
No, that was never the intent – far too dangerous. Every PR should have a GIANT AND CLEAR stamp that it is either CLA safe or not.
If we accept (or even look at, really) a pull request that doesn’t have a CLA, basically we have to dissolve the company, we can’t sell enterprise versions any more and have no hope of generating revenue.
Yeah - the new one will actually be slightly more annoying in that it technically notifies you once it’s noticed a change.
ok, I am going to raise this with Github support, they should allow us to have both a PR status message AND travis without clashing.
Wow, that sounds incredible. Crazy american IP law messing with you again?
Message sent to Github support, let’s see what happens (our friends at Github, feel free to respond here)
heard back from Github
We actually run three different test builds against our commits, so we understand your pain. We’re looking into a way to have a compounded status on commits.
So, the good news is that as soon as this is sorted, we can sort it out too
Personally I have absolutely no problem with the way it is now… CLA is so important to us as an ongoing business concern that having it literally in there as a notification, with timestamp, every single time is just fine by me.
We will still have a big fat stamp on every PR, people who do not sign CLAs will be nagged.
Only diff is that we will stop nagging people who already signed it, they are the devs we want to keep happiest anyways.
I don’t really see it as a nag, I see it as a reminder that they are awesome.
Discoursebot gives you a big every time you submit a PR!
I didn’t know this thread (and topic) would be so polarizing.
I was just hoping to suggest something in the line of how Travis currently indicates the build status. As a metadata of the pull request (which can indicate that the current PR’s author hasn’t signed the CLA in crimson red!), instead of as a comment. Or even fail the build (but thats a little too extreme.)
But @codinghorror, I am not sure why you felt I was suggesting that you “Manually look it up?”
Sure, as I said a bit earlier, we can not do that till Github make some internal changes.
I am pretty sure that IF our big contributors like @zogstrip @kuba and @tms told @codinghorror , sorry we don’t really like getting these emails all the time, @codinghorror could easily be convinced to go the travis message route for approved contributors. However, Github are going to need to fix shit first.
I don’t mind these emails at all. Even if I did, I think it’s the least problem to solve at this moment.
Same as @kuba. I don’t mind these emails at all (actually I’ve got them filtered).
Would I be correct in saying that the CLA status of a PR only matters to three people? Why not just email those three people, instead of making a post where thousands of people can see it?
Mainly GitHub api issues, if GitHub allowed us to better streamline this, we would.
It matters to all observers, everyone needs to see that we have a CLA and require it 100% of the time.