On Sun, 02 May 2010 22:39:01 +1000, Yaniv Aknin wrote:
> >> Yes, in the last year in particular there has been some excellent effort
> >> of maintaining the issue tracker content. But the question still remains
> >> - who are we worried about offending?
>
> > The people who are potential new cont
>> Yes, in the last year in particular there has been some excellent effort
>> of maintaining the issue tracker content. But the question still remains
>> - who are we worried about offending?
> The people who are potential new contributors but don't currently know
> anyone in the Python community
A.M. Kuchling writes:
> True. This makes me wonder if we should be data-mining the tracker
> information to look for significant contributors that no one has
> noticed.
It's an interesting idea. But I've done something similar to this, ad
hoc[1], a few times in XEmacs, and it has never worke
A.M. Kuchling amk.ca> writes:
>
> True. This makes me wonder if we should be data-mining the tracker
> information to look for significant contributors that no one has
> noticed.
I'd say that we usually notice them, since we process their patches or read
their reviews and comments. Unless perha
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:46:37AM +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> their ability to gain recognition for their merit. It's not enough to
> be good at what you do, people have to know it. Ten high-quality
> patches for high-profile bugs in a week may get you enhanced
> privileges, while thirty hi
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:16:48 +0900, "Stephen J. Turnbull"
wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>
> > As I see it, the two camps are divided purely on the question of how to
> > get increased privileges.
>
> As I see it, the division is over what constitutes merit, and how it
> is created or impr
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 23:34:48 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> R. David Murray wrote:
> > And I at
> > least am in the mode of *discussing* it, not speaking from a position set
> > in stone...if the consensus that develops is that the familiarization
> > period can be skipped in certain cases, I'm not
R. David Murray wrote:
> And I at
> least am in the mode of *discussing* it, not speaking from a position set
> in stone...if the consensus that develops is that the familiarization
> period can be skipped in certain cases, I'm not going to block that
> consensus or get mad about it...but I don't t
R. David Murray wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:15:01 -0400, Steve Holden wrote:
[...]
> For the record, note that both Antoine and I have been instrumental in
> bringing more than one new person into both the triage and the committer
> ranks. We (along with others) *are* the ones doing the welco
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:15:01 -0400, Steve Holden wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > Steven D'Aprano pearwood.info> writes:
> >> Who are we worried about offending? The crowds on the Internet who never
> >> volunteer for anything, who never submit patches, let alone offer to do
> >> the unglamou
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 09:18, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 26.04.2010 15:34, schrieb Lennart Regebro:
>> Yes, but only when the checkin was wrong. For all other checkins, it's
>> *less* work. Hence, a committer needs to basically fudge up every
>> second checkin to cause more work than he relieves wo
Am 26.04.2010 15:34, schrieb Lennart Regebro:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:58, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> It is entirely *not* evident to me that it's too hard to get
>> privileges in the Python development community (Python's development
>> process works -- and it works really well by comparis
Lennart Regebro writes:
> > Sure, but that's still *work*, and it's work for *somebody else*.
>
> Yes, but only when the checkin was wrong. For all other checkins, it's
> *less* work. Hence, a committer needs to basically fudge up every
> second checkin to cause more work than he relieves wo
Steve Holden writes:
> Yes, in the last year in particular there has been some excellent effort
> of maintaining the issue tracker content. But the question still remains
> - who are we worried about offending?
In this thread, we did worry about offending Sean and dangerjim. Now
that Sean has
> In other words, I think the goal is not just to add new developers to
> the community, but to continue to build a strong community of developers.
FWIW, from a Python community newbie that has submitted a few patches and
commented on the tracker for a few months, I agree with this statement and
t
Terry Reedy writes:
> As said above, the need to do this should be fixed. In the meantime, if
> people really care about having 'no selection' replaced by 'normal', I
> could do more. I have not bothered because I regard the two as synonyms
> and have not bothered.
Technically they're very
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:37:31 am Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano pearwood.info> writes:
> > That depends on what you call unglamourous work. No, I don't triage
> > bugs. I don't have commit privileges, so I can't.
>
> Is this the sole reason? You could try to review patches which are
> prop
On 4/26/2010 3:22 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
That depends on what you call unglamourous work. No, I don't triage
bugs. I don't have commit privileges, so I can't.
Tracker 'privileges' (responsibilities, really) are different from
commit privileses.
> Does hand-holding
newbies who don't know
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 01:19, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 26 April 2010 07:12, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> > Two of the 3 easiest things I came up with for an outsider to help out
> > with, are things that his account couldn't do.
>
> Would in not therefore be reasonable to question whether the *def
On 4/26/2010 2:15 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
If this were the criterion then the answer would be simple: nobody seems to
knows dangerjim in the Python community.
Except, of course, the person recommending him. And it seems from the
discussion that nobody is particularly bothered about finding out
Steven D'Aprano pearwood.info> writes:
>
> That depends on what you call unglamourous work. No, I don't triage
> bugs. I don't have commit privileges, so I can't.
Is this the sole reason? You could try to review patches which are proposed, or
give advice where you are competent. As Terry (I bel
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 03:45:39 am Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano pearwood.info> writes:
> > Who are we worried about offending? The crowds on the Internet who
> > never volunteer for anything, who never submit patches, let alone
> > offer to do the unglamourous work?
>
> Perhaps you should
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Jesse Noller gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Just to add fuel to the fire w.r.t this discussion about
>> process-improvements, lowering friction, etc. I'd like to point out
>> (unintentionally tooting my own horn) a discussion I started up on
>> t
Jesse Noller gmail.com> writes:
>
> Just to add fuel to the fire w.r.t this discussion about
> process-improvements, lowering friction, etc. I'd like to point out
> (unintentionally tooting my own horn) a discussion I started up on
> this exact topic last week:
>
> http://jessenoller.com/2010/04
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 17:42, R. David Murray wrote:
> The first is that open source projects tend to be meritocracies.
> An otherwise unknown person being introduced to the community and
> immediately given privileges *just* because of the recommendation of
> another person
Since the recommenda
On 4/26/2010 2:12 AM, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
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
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano pearwood.info> writes:
>> Who are we worried about offending? The crowds on the Internet who never
>> volunteer for anything, who never submit patches, let alone offer to do
>> the unglamourous work?
>
> Perhaps you should look more carefully. We do have
Steven D'Aprano pearwood.info> writes:
> Who are we worried about offending? The crowds on the Internet who never
> volunteer for anything, who never submit patches, let alone offer to do
> the unglamourous work?
Perhaps you should look more carefully. We do have contributors who submit
patches
On 4/26/2010 7:45 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
So the question remains - for *tracker* privileges, should the
recommendation and commitment to mentor from an established commiter be
sufficient (and therefore a standard part of our process)?
I think this is a reasonable barrier for entry and should
On 4/26/2010 11:09 AM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
I also I don't remember ever seeing spam in the bugs.python.org
comments which suggests that the subscription process weeds bots
reasonably well.
And when it fails, spam is deleted just so no one does see it.
_
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 01:42:10 am R. David Murray wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:45:34 +0100, Michael Foord
wrote:
> > So the question remains - for *tracker* privileges, should the
> > recommendation and commitment to mentor from an established
> > commiter be sufficient (and therefore a standard
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:45:34 +0100, Michael Foord
wrote:
> So the question remains - for *tracker* privileges, should the
> recommendation and commitment to mentor from an established commiter be
> sufficient (and therefore a standard part of our process)?
I think that in a technical sense a com
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
wrote:
..
> Be careful. Trackers are often hit by spam bots which change random form
> field values. I cannot from memory recall whether or not we had this issue
> on either the tracker tracker or Python's tracker.
>
I would think a c
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Michael Foord
wrote:
> On 26/04/2010 11:58, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>>
>> [snip...]
>>
>> I'm not claiming that the current balance is right.
>
> Hmm... the core development team (those who make commits once a month or
> more frequently) is very small, the numbe
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:58, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> It is entirely *not* evident to me that it's too hard to get
> privileges in the Python development community (Python's development
> process works -- and it works really well by comparison to 99% of the
> processes out there).
Well, tha
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 02:25:33AM -, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
> I think there should be a page on python.org that says all
> contributors are welcome, and one way to become a contributor is to
> wrangle the issue tracker, and explains what this involves (I don't
> really have any idea,
On 26/04/2010 12:24, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hello,
I think it is very much in the interest of Python to evolve our
processes in order to encourage more core-developers. Evolving means
experimenting *and* being willing to change. It is certainly less
*effort* to accept the status quo, but wit
On 26/04/2010 12:40, Scott Dial wrote:
On 4/26/2010 7:24 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
I think it is very much in the interest of Python to evolve our
processes in order to encourage more core-developers. Evolving means
experimenting *and* being willing to change. It is certainly less
*effort* t
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> 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,
On 4/26/2010 7:24 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> I think it is very much in the interest of Python to evolve our
>> processes in order to encourage more core-developers. Evolving means
>> experimenting *and* being willing to change. It is certainly less
>> *effort* to accept the status quo, but wi
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > There is one privilege that should be hard to get: Permanent delete.
> > But being able to triage bugs isn't such a privilege. Heck, not even
> > commit access is, because of someone makes something bad, you can back
> > out the checkin.
>
> Sure, but that's stil
Hello,
> I think it is very much in the interest of Python to evolve our
> processes in order to encourage more core-developers. Evolving means
> experimenting *and* being willing to change. It is certainly less
> *effort* to accept the status quo, but with several more committed and
> enthus
On 26/04/2010 11:58, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
[snip...]
I'm not claiming that the current balance is right.
Hmm... the core development team (those who make commits once a month or
more frequently) is very small, the number of people doing bug triaging
is currently good but also small. We
Lennart Regebro writes:
> 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
> commun
-On [20100426 10:21], Paul Moore (p.f.mo...@gmail.com) wrote:
>Would in not therefore be reasonable to question whether the *default*
>privileges be changed to allow "outsiders" to do these things, rather
>than asking for escalated privileges for one individual? (Or more
>likely, as well as doing s
On 26 April 2010 07:12, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> Two of the 3 easiest things I came up with for an outsider to help out
> with, are things that his account couldn't do.
Would in not therefore be reasonable to question whether the *default*
privileges be changed to allow "outsiders" to do these
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:33, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> There is a little risk. People doing triage can make two common
> mistakes, and both do happen in the Python tracker from time to time:
> a) they reject some contribution, even though a long-time contributor
> might have accepted it with
> 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
65 matches
Mail list logo
