On 14 Apr 2014 01:56, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <step...@xemacs.org> wrote: > > mar...@v.loewis.de writes: > > > For gaining commit access, it's really more important that the patch > > is factually finished, than that it's author believes it to. If people > > get it right the first time often enough, they get commit access. > > Yes, that's what I had in mind, but I guess I explained it poorly.
We should capture this discussion clearly in the dev guide. Even if we switch to a core reviewer model at some point (as I propose in PEP 462), the criteria for core reviewer status will match those for core commiter status. There are actually a few things I'm personally looking for: * good judgement on when a patch is "finished enough" to merge * good judgement on whether a change is a new feature or a bug fix * good judgement whether a new feature is worth the additional cognitive burden * good ability to assess backwards compatibility risks * sufficient humility to answer "I don't know" to the above questions when appropriate and ask the relevant domain experts, their sponsoring mentor, the core-mentorship list or python-dev at large for advice on what to do It's that last one which is really most critical - even Guido asks for additional input when he's uncertain about something, and that's a key part of why I trust his decisions on those rare occasions when he finds it necessary to exercise BDFL fiat (although his long history of demonstrating excellent language design instincts certainly helps!) Cheers, Nick. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ncoghlan%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ 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
