> Sounds good. Why is the barrier for this permission any higher than
> someone asking for it? Is there really a need to protect against
> contributors with malicious intent?
There is a little risk. People doing triage can make two common
mistakes, and both do happen in the Python tracker from t
> If adding people created work for already-busy developers then I'd be
> against it*
I most certainly does create work, but that could be as little as
sending an email message to some administrator.
There is no other way: somebody will have to make a decision, and that
is "work".
Regards,
Marti
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 08:42:00PM -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
>What is *his* interest? How long has he known and used Python?
Good points have been made on both sides of the issue here. Despite my
having a vested interest, I really have no strong feelings one way or
another on the initial request.
I'd say there is something wrong with the process. If a trusted
developer can't get somebody more privilege on the tracker by saying
that "I trust this guy", then a new process is needed. That's it's too
hard to get privileges in the Python development community has been
evident too long, I think.
Tres Seaver writes:
> I think there is a definite "unpriced externality" to keeping the
> process barriers high here.
The proposed trial period is not a high barrier, except to those who
really didn't want to being doing the work anyway. Note that There is
also an externality to having account
On 25 Apr, 11:18 pm, st...@holdenweb.com wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
pobox.com> writes:
Sean> However, I will step up for him and say that I've known
him a
Sean> decade, and he's very trustworthy. He has been the
president (we
Sean> call that position Maximum
On 4/25/2010 4:31 PM, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
I'm trying to get a good friend of mine to start doing bug triage on Python.
What is *his* interest? How long has he known and used Python?
As part of my trying to mentor him on it, I've found that many of the common
things I do in triage, like
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:18:47PM +, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > I don't think Antoine is questioning Sean's judgement but rather that we
> > should get into the habit of giving some people "shortcuts" through the
> > regular process.
>
> Yes, exactly.
> If we often take shortcuts with our own
On 26/04/2010 00:18, Steve Holden wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
pobox.com> writes:
Sean> However, I will step up for him and say that I've known him a
Sean> decade, and he's very trustworthy. He has been the president (we
Sean> call tha
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> pobox.com> writes:
>>> Sean> However, I will step up for him and say that I've known him a
>>> Sean> decade, and he's very trustworthy. He has been the president (we
>>> Sean> call that position Maximum Leader) of our Linux Users Group her
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> pobox.com> writes:
>>
>> Sean> However, I will step up for him and say that I've known him a
>> Sean> decade, and he's very trustworthy. He has been the president (we
>> Sean> call that position Maximum Leader) of
Le Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:59:14 -0500, Benjamin Peterson a écrit :
>
> I don't think Antoine is questioning Sean's judgement but rather that we
> should get into the habit of giving some people "shortcuts" through the
> regular process.
Yes, exactly.
If we often take shortcuts with our own process,
On 09:39 pm, solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
pobox.com> writes:
Sean> However, I will step up for him and say that I've known him
a
Sean> decade, and he's very trustworthy. He has been the
president (we
Sean> call that position Maximum Leader) of our Linux Users Group
here
Sea
2010/4/25 :
>
> >> Given that Sean is vouching for him I'm fine with it.
>
> Antoine> I'm not sure I agree. Of course it could be argued the risk is
> Antoine> minimal, but I think it's better if all people go through the
> Antoine> same path of proving their motivation and quality of
>> Given that Sean is vouching for him I'm fine with it.
Antoine> I'm not sure I agree. Of course it could be argued the risk is
Antoine> minimal, but I think it's better if all people go through the
Antoine> same path of proving their motivation and quality of work. And
Anto
pobox.com> writes:
>
>
> Sean> However, I will step up for him and say that I've known him a
> Sean> decade, and he's very trustworthy. He has been the president (we
> Sean> call that position Maximum Leader) of our Linux Users Group here
> Sean> for 5 years or so.
>
> Given th
Sean> However, I will step up for him and say that I've known him a
Sean> decade, and he's very trustworthy. He has been the president (we
Sean> call that position Maximum Leader) of our Linux Users Group here
Sean> for 5 years or so.
Given that Sean is vouching for him I'm fine
I'm trying to get a good friend of mine to start doing bug triage on Python.
As part of my trying to mentor him on it, I've found that many of the common
things I do in triage, like setting a priority for priorityless bugs,
assigning them to people who obviously are the next step, requires enhanced
Hi Python experts.
[It should be obvious, but you can run the code in this message via
python -m doctest body.txt if you saved it as body.txt]
In an application I develop on I want to use properties instead of the
getter/setter paradigm. I ran into a problem overriding a property in
a subclass. W
On 24 Apr, 2010, at 18:15, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 18/04/2010 15:13, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>> On 14 Apr, 2010, at 23:37, Michael Foord wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 14/04/2010 23:32, Greg Ewing wrote:
>>>
Michael Foord wrote:
> Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode
20 matches
Mail list logo
