On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Joe Wreschnig <[email protected]>wrote:
> .... > > Maybe this is a difference of expectations. I expect whoever commits > my patches to eventually read the code, not the stuff in the issue > tracker. I expect the reviewer/committer to read both; I expect the larger set of people discussing whether the change is a good idea (a discussion which should happen for any API change) to be able to find the relevant info to *that* discussion without reading the code, and preferably to find it nicely summarized in the info tracker. I also expect the proposer to do more work in order to lessen the work required of the reviewers, and to generally think of what he's doing as just as much like "asking for a favor from volunteers" as it is "offering to contribute something of value to the community" (though ideally it is both). > The stuff in the issue tracker is there to help searches, let > people comment, and link/attach updated patches. It is not a place to > repeat everything I did in the code. I agree. > You seem to expect to never need > to even glance at the code of the patches you are vetting. If that's > the case, I might as well just be given committer privileges. > I am not the one who might review and commit this code. I am suggesting what should be in the issue tracker to lessen the burden on people wanting to participate in the discussion, and on whoever might volunteer to actually review and commit the code (as I think Casey has done under certain conditions, but I won't try to speak for him about whether they're being met). - Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users?hl=en.
