Phil Thompson writes: > MvL wrote:
> > I doubt this will help. Much of the code isn't owned by anybody > > specifically. Those parts that are owned typically find their patches > > reviewed and committed quickly (e.g. the tar file module, maintained by > > Lars Gustäbel). > Doesn't your last sentence completely contradict your first sentence? Not in view of the second one. Martin is saying that where the existing process looks like your suggestion, it already works great. It's not that this isn't well-known to the core developers! The problem is a lack of reviewers/module "owners". The existing review-for-review *offer* (not requirement!) proposes to increase the supply of reviewers by offering them "good and valuable consideration" (ie, a fast track for their own patches) in return. You may not wish to take advantage of that offer, but it addresses the underlying problem. The other proposals on the table amount to (a) the existing reviewers should work harder and (b) if patches aren't reviewed, then they should be presumed good enough to apply. I think it should be obvious how far they will get when restated in those practical terms. _______________________________________________ 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
