Anne Archibald wrote: > I think here's the rub: when I hear "patch review system" it sounds to > me like an obstacle course for getting code into the software. Maybe > it's justified, but I think at the moment there are many many things > that are just awaiting a little bit of attention from someone who > knows the code. A patch review system overapplied would multiply that > number by rather a lot. >
I think in this discussion, it is easy to see the drawbacks, and not seeing the advantages (better code, etc...). > How about a purely-optional patch review system? I've submitted > patches I wanted reviewed before they went in the trunk. As it was, I > didn't have SVN access, so I just posted them to trac or emailed them > to somebody, who then pondered and committed them. But a patch review > system - provided people were promptly reviewing patches - would have > fit the bill nicely. > It is not much, but I've just created a trac report to see all (open) tickets with an attachment. What would be good would be to create a new ticket type, like patch, such as instead of seeing all attachments (including build log as now), we see real attachments. I know next to nothing about databases and how complicated it would be to do it in trac, but I know other projects using trac have it, so it is doable. cheers, David _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
