RetroSearch Browse

Mon Mar 12 16:41:10 CET 2007 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-March/071896.html

On 3/12/07, Miguel Lobo <mlobol at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyway, I'm intrigued about this "review 5 other patches" procedure you
> suggest.  What exactly would be involved in such a review?  Please note that
> I hadn't touched CPython code before I wrote my patch and I haven't been
> following CPython development closely.

Hi Miguel,

This is how we suck you in...  ;)

You don't have to be an expert to review patches.  The following
procedure would qualify you:

1.  Find a patch that it appears no one has ever touched (0 comments,
assigned to nobody, etc.)

2.  Pretty much every patch should include a unit test and
documentation.  If something is missing from the patch you're looking
at, post a comment that says "Incomplete, no docs/tests".

3.  Repeat until you've commented on five patches.

If you find such clerical work beneath you, you can go further--build
Python from source, apply patches, and verify that they work.  It's
not hard (google "python developer faq").  But it's not required.

-j

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-March/071896.html below:

[Python-Dev] Patch 1644818: Allow importing built-in submodules