> When we say "backport candidate", does that mean we need to think > about it more or that it is waiting for someone like me to pounce on > it and get it done? It means somebody (like you :-) should do triage on the feasibility of it. The triage can have several outcomes: - Trivial yes: the patch applies directly to the 2.2 branch and doesn't cause problems there. In this case, you can apply it right away and be done with it. - Trivial no: the patch doesn't make sense at all -- this should only happen when the patch patches code that was added in 2.3; in this case the backport/bugfix marking was a mistake, but mistakes happen. - Needs work: the idea behind the patch applies to 2.2, but the code there is sufficiently different that patch (or cvs update -j) doesn't quite work. There are gradations of this, depending on what's in the way. In this case, you may put it off. We need a database of these triage decisions; the new RoundUp-based tracker (prototype at python.org:8080) is supposed to have a feature to add this info to the tracker, but I don't know how it works or whether it is adequate yet. I'm cc'ing this to python-dev since others may be interested in this topic. Also note that I believe we've been inconsistent in marking up candidates: some say "bugfix candidate", some say "backport candidate", some may not be marked at all. :-( --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4