On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Daniel Greenfeld <pyda...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Also, the pattern I described to you fits very well within the > beautiful promise of DVCS. The cleaner branching and merging of DVCS > makes this sort of approach wonderful for all parties involved. Rather > than giant, monolithic pull requests with lots of tiny commits, they > get very easy to integrate pull requests.
With all respect to abstract theories I can't immediately see how it applies to Mercurial in this particular case. > Smaller, atomic pieces are much easier to handle then larger > multi-task components. Isn't that the promise of OOP and functional > programming? :-) The contribution process is two fold. If maintainers are too picky about bells and whistles surrounding the submitted patches (as I do too) you can expect a significant drop in amount of people who want to submit those patches. That's one of the reasons some project have a lot of contributors and other are not. > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:09 AM, anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> You're request and proposed action would be nice if it used Mercurial, >> but it uses Git + GitHub and have >> https://bitbucket.org/loewis/pypi/pull-request/1/fix-imports-add-logging-to-console-inabsolutely >> no idea how to apply it to Mercurial + Bitbucket. If I understand you >> correctly for every 7 commits in queue I need to make a separate clone >> and commit it separately. That's far from the that beautiful promise >> DVCS made. =) >> >> All commits are available in pull request separately. If you take >> another look at >> https://bitbucket.org/loewis/pypi/pull-request/1/fix-imports-add-logging-to-console-in >> you'll see there is an ongoing discussion over a questionable commit >> with Martin. Feel free to comment on any revision. I can rework them >> one by one on request if they are taking too much time to review. >> >> Your wish is valid and well understood, but for specific big features. >> For a series of small clean up changes such as this one this places a >> more constrain on the person submitting changes. So unless there is a >> comment that code is too complicated, I'd prefer to save this extra >> time to polishing other aspects. >> >> There are also 4 more commits in my copy waiting for this review to >> complete, which I deliberately doesn't add to this request to >> >> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Daniel Greenfeld <pyda...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Anatoly, >>> >>> Here's a major issues with your pull request: >>> >>> It's not atomic enough. PyPI is a massive effort so any pull request >>> should be as small as possible. For example, "running without sentry >>> client" should be just a single pull request. By combining multiple >>> "actions" into one pull requests, you've made it harder for the PyPI >>> authors to evaluate your work. Which means they'll be less inclined to >>> review it. >>> >>> Break this up into 3 separate pull requests. It's easy to do with >>> branching, and the maintainers of the project will appreciate you for >>> it. >>> >>> In fact, one thing we did with Open Comparison >>> (http://djangopackages.com, http://pyramid.opencomparison.org, and >>> soon http://python.opencomparison.org) that as helped us a lot as >>> maintainers is write a formal contributing document that spells this >>> out and more. See: >>> >>> http://opencomparison.readthedocs.org/en/latest/contributing.html >>> >>> and in your case, specifically: >>> >>> http://opencomparison.readthedocs.org/en/latest/contributing.html#how-to-get-your-pull-request-accepted >>> >>> I suggest to Richard and Martin they adopt something similar. Or they >>> can use our contributing rules in the same manner as Read the Docs: >>> >>> https://github.com/rtfd/readthedocs.org/blob/master/docs/contribute.rst >>> >>> Danny >>> >>> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 2:21 AM, anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM, anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Anybody to merge my changes from >>>>> https://bitbucket.org/techtonik/pypi-techtonik ? >>>> >>>> Richard told me he is busy preparing for the PyCon AU and >>>> administering ongoing PyGame, so no help here. >>>> Martin told it will take time. So, anybody else at least to review and >>>> comment? >>>> >>>> https://bitbucket.org/loewis/pypi/pull-request/1/fix-imports-add-logging-to-console-in >>>> >>>> I also sent mail to PSF requesting a new `pydotorg` account on >>>> Bitbucket, so that there will be a permanent home for official mirror >>>> for PyPI that can be found using Bitbucket search along with other >>>> open repositories for web to send pull requests to. >>>> >>>> In the meanwhile there few more clean up changes, one of which loosens >>>> dependency on M2Crypto, which is not installable in virtualenv if you >>>> don't have SWIG installed systemwide. Although it doesn't remove it >>>> completely yet. The goal is to make pycrypto an optional alternative >>>> for M2Crypto for an easy development. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Catalog-SIG mailing list >>>> Catalog-SIG@python.org >>>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 'Knowledge is Power' >>> Daniel Greenfeld >>> http://pydanny.com > > > > -- > 'Knowledge is Power' > Daniel Greenfeld > http://pydanny.com _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
