Giovanni Bajo writes: > On 05/03/2007 19.46, A.M. Kuchling wrote: > > > At PyCon, there was general agreement that exposing a read-only > > Bazaar/Mercurial/git/whatever version of the repository wouldn't be > > too much effort, and might make things easier for external people > > developing patches.
> I really believe this is just a red herring, pushed by some SCM > wonk. The problem with patch submission has absolutely *nothing* to > do with tools. Of course it does. How important is a matter for individual judgment, of course. The *frustration level* with the acceptance process is certainly related to the annoyance of locally maintaining a patch in the face of a flow of upstream changes. The distributed SCMs make this *much* easier, and therefore can reduce the frustration level, at *zero* expense to the core developers (anybody with read access can maintain such a read-only repo). This is a good thing. It *is* important that the core sanction and support "official" mirror repos. This may or may not help the acceptance process to improve; I believe you are correct, that it will have little direct impact on the acceptance process. Nevertheless, life for third-party developers will become somewhat more pleasant, especially as they have a much easier way to exchange and refine patches. This last can feed back into the "review for review" bargain. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
