On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 12:47 AM <esmeraldagar...@byom.de> wrote: > Okay so I just code a little bit and I used the multiprocessing module but > my code didn't work and I found the solution on Stack Overflow and it > turned out to be not my mistake (which has never happened before I think). > Instead I found out it's a bug in Python and the issue on Github was linked > so I opened it and I was surprised to see what's going on "behind the > scenes". > > Yes I have basically no experience in maintaining any big project. So when > you're saying "You don't know what it's like and therefore your complaint > doesn't make sense" then you're not wrong and I just have to believe you. > But I think this is a dangerous argument because it could also be used to > shut up anything and anybody. (I'm not saying this is the case here.) > Therefore, this argument should rarely be used in my opinion. From an > outsider's perspective it just looks really weird that a bugfix from 2017 > hasn't become a priority to get merged, like the process is flawed. That's > all. I didn't mean to attack any one of you. I want to make that clear > because it feels like some of you got kinda defensive about it. > > I don't think anyone felt attacked. The hard-working devs are merely trying to explain the facts of life, and if exasperation occasionally creeps in that's probably because this is far from the first time this issue has been raised here. (You'll note I refer to the core devs in the third person, since I am not one of them and neither do I speak for them, I am merely recording my observations).
"There's been quite a bit of discussion on both of them" - None of the > discussions left any questions unanswered. Except for the question of when > the pull request will get merged. > > "Merging something is also a responsibility to whoever does it" - And it's > also a responsibility to fix bugs, no? I don't get why you're so afraid of > (maybe!) introducing a new bug when there already (certainly!) is a bug. > > Whose "responsibility" do you think it should be to fix bugs? Who do you think should set priorities to determine which work is done first. Few core developers are paid to work on Python, and even those that are (until the PSF's developer is appointed) might expect to have their overall priorities set by their employer. As a consumer of their work who's made little contribution to the language I don't personally feel that I have much right to dictate how devs spend their time. I'm just glad so many of them do. The fact is that for any community-run open source project the only reliable way to ensure PRs get merged is to acquire commit rights and do it yourself. It's by no means ideal, but that's the current reality for Python. "Oops. I'm really sorry for giving false hopes, then, because I don't think > I'm motivated to review this PR. I'm not really maintaining multiprocessing > these days, anymore" - No worries dude. This not about one person or one > bug. I'm sorry that the issue that I stumbled upon turned out to be one > where you said you'd put it on your list. > > "What if that one line change is even more wrong than before?" - Yes of > course there's a risk. Just like there was a risk when you merged the > original code which contained the bug, right?! At some point you have to > say yes that looks okay let's merge it, even though there is a slight > chance it could contain a mistake. And it is not obvious to me (and many > other people who commented in those github threads) what else would > possibly be needed. After all, there are currently actual people who are > affected by the bug - and you're only talking about hypothetical people > being affected by a possibly wrong bugfix. > > Let's assume that it takes an hour to properly review and merge a PR. If someone only has five hours a week to work on Python they are hardly going to consider spending 20% of their available time tht week on sometthing unrelted to the work they've been doint of rk > "When I got the shutil.which feature merged, the PR had been open for I > believe 11 years" - Totally different topic. I explicitly said in my > initial message, that I'm talking about a bugfix, not a new feature. > > "If you would like more value out of it or to speed up the process, you > can provide your own reviews." - Seriously? I can't help but feel like that > comment sounds kinda arrogant. I hope I'm misunderstanding you. Look at > that link and Stack Overflow post again how many people commented and voted > that the patch fixed their issues. How many more people do you want? > > It isn't a matter of summoning the desire, it's a matter of allocating time. > "*maintainer attention* is actually the scarcest resource in many open > source projects, and Python is no exception." - Then get more people to do > this? Don't tell me Python isn't big enough to find some companies or funds > to sponsor a few people to work the dreaded reviewer job a few hours a > week? Or let more amateur coders review and have a core reviewer review > their reviews? I totally get the point that reviewers are a scarce > resource. But I do not get the point why you're not changing that. > > You appear to assume that to do so is a simple matter. As someone who's literally been responsible for the running of the Python Software Foundation I can tell you it isn't. Where would these amateur coders you describe come from? How much would that shorten the process if their reviews still need review? How will the reviewers be recruited and trained? "almost by definition, ANY regression is worse than any bug that still > exists today" - Yeah I get this point and I think I agree. But it's more > about risk evaluation. Because if there is absolutely no willingness to > risk mistakenly introducing a regression then you're effectively at a > standstill. You can never merge anything again because it might affect the > code base in a way you hadn't foreseen. So you need to take some risks. > > "Most stdlib modules have no maintainer and past maintainers are gone for > a long time." - I'm flabbergasted. I don't know what to say. Can't you not > see how bad that is?! > > I don 't think anyone is in much doubt about that. But you still seem to think that resources can be magically conjured up somehow. They can't, and it's a little offensive to assume that your perceptions of the project will somehow be revelatory. You describe real problems, but these problems are well-known to the development team and you offer no new insights or solutions. It's great you see the same problems the core devs do, but understanding the problem alone isn't going to achieve anything without additional resources. "As specifically to the flaws in our workflow and the backlog, this is > exactly what the was designed to address" - To end on a positive note: The > Developer-in-Residence program sounds like a really good idea. And I love > Python and appreciate all the work that went into it and I really hope all > of you believe me when I say this despite me internet rando pooping on your > review process. <3 > That's perfectly believable. Kind regards, Steve
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/BQHPP5KMYWV65KA6CDLTY72IZ2MDTKVC/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
