On 3/1/2014 3:25 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 15:08:00 -0500
Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote:
On 3/1/2014 2:57 PM, Sebastian Kraft wrote:
Hi everybody,
more than a year ago I have submitted a patch to enhance the Wave module
with read/write support for floating point data.
http://bugs.python.org/issue16525
Up till now this patch has not been applied nor did I get feedback if
anything needs to be enhanced or changed before it can be committed.
I have never been in contact with your development process and Python
core developers, so please tell me what I should improve...
Please subscribe to core-mentorship list and post your question there.
I don't understand this response. You seem to be assuming that
Sebastian is asking for guidance,
I am reading what he posted, which ended with "please tell me what I
should improve...".
This sort of question-request is routinely posted, in much the same
words, on core-mentorship, and routinely gets a response there.
> but he's simply telling us about a patch that hasn't received
> any review yet, despite having been posted one year ago.
If that were all he said (and it is not) it would not be too useful.
There are about 4000 open issues. About half have the 'patch' keyword
set, and probably more have patches without the keyword. About 700 with
the keywork have seen no activity for a year. Some fraction of those
have never received a review. I would guess at least 100. In this sense,
there is, unfortunately in my opinion, nothing too special about this
issue or patch.
If you are really interested in this subset of issues, someone should do
a custom search against the database. Issues that are open, have a patch
(a file name ending in .diff or .patch) posted more than a year ago, and
have no subsequent responses from a core developer, would be a start.
Perhaps we should add a 'reviewed' field to the table of uploads, which
would be automatically marked True when is a completed Rietveld
response. Perhaps there should be a way to connect review messages, as
opposed to mere comment messages, to the patch they review. We should
think about this in the process re-design Nick has planned.
It's not obvious he has been doing something wrong that
he needs to be taught about.
The same could initially be said of all the similar posts on
core-mentorship. But please change 'wrong' to 'incomplete or something.
Most patches get revised and augmented without being 'wrong'. This is
especialy true of patches from people 'have never been in contact with
[our] development process'.
What makes Sebastian's request worth extra attention is the extra
information that he, the author of the neglected patch, is still around
and desirous of discussing, editing, and augmenting the patch as necessary.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
