RetroSearch Browse

Thu Sep 30 19:37:02 CEST 2010 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-September/104359.html

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:31, Daniel Stutzbach <
daniel at stutzbachenterprises.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:52 AM, <exarkun at twistedmatrix.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course, this is only true if the core developers *do* submit to the
>> same rules.  Is anyone proposing that current core committers have all their
>> work reviewed before it is accepted?
>>
>
> I think most would welcome (or at least tolerate ;) ) additional review of
> their code.
>
> The hard part is encouraging contributors to find the time and motivation
> to thoroughly review code that they aren't personally interested in (and
> perhaps not even familiar with).
>
> --
> Daniel Stutzbach, Ph.D.
> President, Stutzbach Enterprises, LLC <http://stutzbachenterprises.com/>
>

I definitely welcome additional, or in some cases, *any* review. Looking for
reviews of Windows features/bugs sometimes equates to looking in a ghost
town, but I have the self-inflicted problem of using Windows in the first
place ;)

Anyways, a big +1 to expanding review, especially incorporating something
like Rietveld. Although I'm replying out of order, Barry's big response lays
out a lot of good ideas that I think we can use.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20100930/131e37bb/attachment.html>

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

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-September/104359.html below:

[Python-Dev] We should be using a tool for code reviews