Hi Iwan, all, My python skills have improved over the months and since it's essential for my organisation that this lib progresses, I want to give it a shot :) If you want, you can add me to the reviewers group and assign some of the simpler ones.
Best, Miel Op di 19 apr. 2022 om 00:28 schreef Iwan Aucamp <aucam...@gmail.com>: > A bit of an update here, we have adopted a code of conduct ( > https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/blob/master/docs/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) and > we have defined some pull request guidelines ( > https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/blob/master/docs/developers.rst#pull-requests-guidelines > and > https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md) > - it does not quite go into that much detail about how to review pull > request, but it gives an idea of what the preconditions are for merging. I > may expand on these things as I have time but any feedback or further > suggestions are also welcome. > > I'm thinking of making a GitHub group (i.e. team) called > "rdflib-reviewers" and adding people in there who are open to being tagged > on reviews and then tagging the group on reviews, if anyone is interested > in being in the group please let me know, of course you don't have to > review everything you get tagged on but at the moment I basically just tag > the core maintainers and Graham Higgins, as Graham has been very helpful > with Reviewing PRs. I'm also open to other options, but my aim is to create > a surplus of reviewers for PRs, as currently we have somewhat of a reviewer > deficit. > > On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 16:50:56 UTC+1 Graham Higgins wrote: > >> Iwan writes: >> > Not every comment on a PR has to be coupled with a review outcome >> (approval, request for changes, etc) - comments can just be comments. >> >> This is so true. I've been going through some of the older PRs, trying to >> find some low-hanging fruit but it's not always straightforward. All of the >> older PRs will need re-working by the contributor (or adopting by someone). >> A goodly number of PR discussions have been suspended pending >> development/milestones. Some of these suspended discussions can be >> progressed without actually writing any code. >> >> Take the 28 May 2020 PR 1087 “Fix Issue #948” >> <https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/pull/1087> as an example ... >> >> The discussion starts with >> > “We have provided the solution for issue #948 >> <https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/issues/948> . In this we have allowed >> objects to have special characters with forward slash to make it a valid >> one.” >> >> The discussion ends with tgbug’s prompt response: >> > “As the test results show, this approach will not work. The place in >> the code to start on this is probably in <rdflib/rdflib/namespace.py >> <https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/blob/037ea51e5f4863a7f98ff59972fcd34d39a7ed97/rdflib/namespace.py#L836>:split_uri> >> , but the issue related to curies vs qnames will also have to be addressed >> to really address #948 <https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/issues/948>.” >> >> Issue #948 (from 19 Dec 2019) is titled: “Prefixed names does not allow >> escaping (turtle 1.1) - It is not possible to use escaping when using >> namespace prefixes. Creation of URIRefs warns about the problem and the >> serializer fails to create turtle 1.1 output.” >> >> This #948 discussion ends with tgbug*s’* 10 March 2020 comment >> <https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/issues/948#issuecomment-597376865> >> > “This is not just a parsing issue. It almost certainly will require >> changes to how curie suffixes are serialized. It may have unexpected >> interactions with the uri splitting code and might depend on #649 >> <https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/pull/649> to get the expected >> roundtripping behavior, and some additional work to serialize escaped >> characters in local names correctly.” >> >> As it transpires, #649 is actually tgbugs’s 16 March 2020 PR >> <https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/pull/649> (“namespace.py fix >> compute_qname missing namespaces”) which nicholascar committed to master >> on 16 March 2020. >> >> So, the #948 issue discussion can be updated with this information and >> the #1087 PR can, in turn, be revisited to check if the proposed changes >> are still valid w.r.t RDFLib 6.0.2 and whether the PR does actually fix the >> #948 issue. >> >> Sadly, the actual work of updating and checking the #1087 PR has to be >> done locally. >> >> I already have a clone of RDFLib in my home org and Github won't allow me >> to make another, so I can't clone a PR contributor's repos, merge with >> RDFLIb master and then issue a PR on their branch to bring it up to date >> and so progress their PR. >> >> The best alternative that I've come up with so far is to clone their >> repos locally, merge with RDFLib master locally and then create a new >> branch to contain the now-updated PR. >> >> Cheers, >> Graham >> >> >> -- > http://github.com/RDFLib > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "rdflib-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rdflib-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rdflib-dev/bfbe8bdd-6735-46e4-9b64-f5f4fcf0a0e8n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rdflib-dev/bfbe8bdd-6735-46e4-9b64-f5f4fcf0a0e8n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- http://github.com/RDFLib --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rdflib-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rdflib-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rdflib-dev/CAHeRLWsSsKOLpFbEuruCzTyzyUebUOx8WdLBBPFX7YW2Go9WYA%40mail.gmail.com.
