Jim> The 5:1 patch review is a good idea -- but what is the procedure Jim> for reviewing a patch?
Jim> I often comment on patches. Does this count as a review? Would Jim> anyone know if it did? I believe "review" can mean a few things: * Comments. Reviewing the code does it look reasonable to you given your experience in the space the patch is playing in? Is it missing anything (test cases, documentation, platform dependencies)? * Apply it in your sandbox and try it out. Does the Python test suite pass? Does it work with your applications? * Extend it. If it's missing platform dependencies, test cases or documentation and you can supply (any of) them, feel free to do so. Open a new patch and add a comment to the current tracker item containing a reference to it. (In SourceForge at least you won't be able to attach a file to a tracker item you didn't create or don't own. YMMV once the Rapture occurs and we get to RoundUp nirvana.) Generally, once you've reviewed the five, post a note here referencing them and also referring to the item you would like reviewed. (Personally, if you take a tracker item from "clearly can't be committed as is" to "this is good to go" I think the five review bar should be lowered.) Jim> Sometimes the patch is good, or they deal with all issues.[1] At Jim> that point, I ... stop commenting. "Works for me" and "looks good to me" are also valid comments. ;-) Skip _______________________________________________ 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