On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I recently got some patches accepted for inclusion in 3.3, and each time, >> the patch metadata (such as my name and my commit comment) were stripped by >> applying the patch manually, instead of hg importing it. This makes it clear >> in the history who eventually reviewed and applied the patch, but less >> visible who wrote it (except for the entry in Misc/NEWS). >> >> I didn't see this mentioned in the dev-guide. Is it being considered the >> Right Way To Do It? > > Generally speaking, it's more useful for the checkin metadata to > reflect who actually did the checkin, since that's the most useful > information for the tracker and buildbot integration. The question of > did the original patch does matter in terms of giving appropriate > credit (which is covered by NEWS and the commit message), but who did > the checkin matters for immediate workflow reasons (i.e. who is > responsible for dealing with any buildbot breakage, objections on > python-dev, objections on the tracker, etc). > > One of the key aspects of having push rights is that we're the ones > that take responsibility for the state of the central repo - if we > stuff it up and break the build (either because we missed something on > review, or due to cross-platform issues), that's *our* problem, not > usually something the original patch contributor needs to worry about.
Well, it doesn't hurt to keep the patch author in the loop about those -- they may know their patch best and they may even learn something new, which might make their future patches better! Of course if they *don't* know how to fix an issue (e.g. if it's a platform-specific thing) then they shouldn't be blamed. > We do have a guideline that says to always use the "--no-commit" flag > with "hg import" and then run the tests before committing, so that may > answer your question about whether or not it's an official policy. > (That said, I don't know if the devguide actually says that explicitly > anywhere - it's just reflected in the various workflow examples, as > well as in the mailing list discussions that helped craft those > examples) I agree with this, but I also want to make sure the author of the patch always gets proper recognition (after all that's what motivates people to contribute!). I think that their name should always be in the description if it's not in the committer field. Use your best judgment or qualifying terms for patches that are co-productions of committer and original author. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ 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
