On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 07:11, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Hi,
Stephen J. Turnbull stephen at xemacs.org writes:
There *is* a process problem, though I don't claim to have an idea how
to solve it. Some developers (especially well-known is Martin van
Loewis) are trying to address this with the one committer's review
for five reviews offer, but maybe there are even better ways to do
it. However, this is a *different problem* from lost patches, which
many projects do suffer from, and shouldn't be called by that name,
which is insulting to the Python committers.
I don't think it is insulting (I say that as a young Python committer), and I
do
think it is fair to call them lost patches. Perhaps not after four months,
but
when a good patch hasn't been committed after two years, it is potentially
lost
because the code base has changed a lot since that and 1) the patch doesn't
apply completely anymore 2) it must be reassessed whether the patch is
good/useful/necessary with respect to the current code base, which can be
tricky.
It is unfortunate when a good patch for a real issue doesn't get
applied during the current development cycle. But I honestly think, in
general, the important ones do get looked at and handled. Yes, some
slip through the cracks, but overall I think we do pretty well.
As for reviews, we don't seem to use Rietveld a lot, although it offers a nice
interface for comfortably viewing changes, and possibly commenting them. The
overhead of having to open a separate issue in Rietveld and upload the patch
there is a bit annoying, though.
My hope is that some day we get around to fixing this and getting a
code review application tied into the issue workflow so it is no more
than pressing a button.
-Brett
___
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
