On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:21:00 -0700 Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe > <tshep...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 18:55, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe > >> <tshep...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 17:51, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > >>>> and I'm not sure we'd like to > >>>> accept code from convicted fellons (though I'd consider that a gray > >>>> area). > >>> > >>> This makes me curious... why would that be a problem at all (assuming > >>> the felony is not related to the computing field)? > >> > >> Because the person might not be trustworthy, period. Or it might > >> reflect badly upon Python's reputation. But yes, I could also see > >> cases where we'd chose to trust the person anyway. This is why I said > >> it's a gray area -- it can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. > >> The most likely case might actually be someone like Aaron Swartz. > > > > Even if Aaron submits typo fixes for documentation :) > > > > I would think that being core developer would be the only thing that > > would require trust. As for a random a contributor, their patches are > > always reviewed by core developers before going in, so I don't see any > > need for trust there. Identity is another matter of course, but no one > > even checks if I'm the real Tshepang Lekhonkhobe. > > I don't think you're a core contributor, right? Even if a core > developer reviews the code, it requires a certain level of trust, > especially for complex patches.
I would say trust is gained through previous patches, not through personal knowledge of the contributor, 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
