On 08/03/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Titus Brown schrieb:
>  > and it's not at all clear to outsiders like me how new
>  > features, old patches, and old bugs are dealt with.
> The simple answer is "when we have time". There really is not
> more to it. Some patches get higher attention, e.g. because
> they fix serious bugs. Proposed new features of don't get any
> attention by the "mafia", because Python will just work fine
> without the new feature.

Just to elaborate a bit on Martin's comment. I (very occasionally)
scan SF and review patches - I have no commit privilege, so that's all
I can do. I find that "having enough time" is amazingly infrequent.
Often, I start looking with all the best intentions, and get bogged
down on one item, then find that real life has caught up and I've done
what feels like nothing.
As regards prioritisation, I don't know of any way of realistically
doing this. All I do is scan the list (either from oldest to newest or
vice versa depending on my mood) and look for "interesting" or
"important" looking subjects. I suppose that emphasizes the need for
using good subject lines, but not much else :-)

As you can see, it's anything but scientific - and there's a lot of
ways that "important" items could get missed. But it's not that way
because I'm slacking, or snubbing particular areas or authors - it's
just the best way I can find. If anyone can find a better way (and
write it up as "How to do bug/patch reviews and triage" or something)
that would be brilliant. I suspect there isn't one, though - at least
with SF (Roundup may be better) and given the time and resources I
have available.

Python-Dev mailing list

Reply via email to