On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 02:40:19PM -, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
This list would make a good addition to one of the cpython development
pages. If potential contributors could find this information, then
they'd be much more likely to participate by doing reviews.
If anyone wants
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:15:49 +1000, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
No, of course not. There are always other reasons, the biggest is too
many things to do and not enough time to do it. If I did review
patches, would they be accepted on the strength on my untrusted
reviews?
It
On 01:38 pm, rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:15:49 +1000, Steven D'Aprano
st...@pearwood.info wrote:
No, of course not. There are always other reasons, the biggest is too
many things to do and not enough time to do it. If I did review
patches, would they be accepted on the
On Apr 27, 2010, at 02:40 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On 01:38 pm, rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
2) have unit tests that fail before the patch and succeed after
This list would make a good addition to one of the cpython development
pages. If potential contributors could find this
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:16:51 -0400, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
It would be kind of cool if there were some best practices for running said
unittest both with and without the patch enabled. Kind of like using #ifdefs
in C but without all the commenting-out-commenting-in error
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Apr 27, 2010, at 02:40 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On 01:38 pm, rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
2) have unit tests that fail before the patch and succeed after
This list would make a good addition to one of
On Apr 27, 2010, at 11:43 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
I wonder if it would be better to encourage people to post the unit
tests and the fix as separate patch files.
I think this is not bad idea for larger fixes, where it's not trivial to
manually edit the diff.
-Barry
signature.asc
