Hi, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen <at> xemacs.org> writes: > > There *is* a process problem, though I don't claim to have an idea how > to solve it. Some developers (especially well-known is Martin van > Loewis) are trying to address this with the "one committer's review > for five reviews" offer, but maybe there are even better ways to do > it. However, this is a *different problem* from "lost patches", which > many projects do suffer from, and shouldn't be called by that name, > which is insulting to the Python committers.
I don't think it is insulting (I say that as a young Python committer), and I do think it is fair to call them "lost patches". Perhaps not after four months, but when a good patch hasn't been committed after two years, it is potentially lost because the code base has changed a lot since that and 1) the patch doesn't apply completely anymore 2) it must be reassessed whether the patch is good/useful/necessary with respect to the current code base, which can be tricky. As for reviews, we don't seem to use Rietveld a lot, although it offers a nice interface for comfortably viewing changes, and possibly commenting them. The overhead of having to open a separate issue in Rietveld and upload the patch there is a bit annoying, though. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
