"Mark Hammond" <mhammond@skippinet.com.au> writes: > Let me first get the most benign comments out of the way first: I hate > sourceforge's bug manager!! I quite like it. > I have fallen in love with bugzilla, as it works oh-so well. I know > it is too easy to blame the tools, but having a discrete CC list > per-bug really works well. Not sure what that is, but on SF, there is a "discrete CC list" as well: You can easily add yourself to the CC list, by commenting; removing yourself is not supported, but I don't see the need: Just delete the messages you don't want. > At the moment I have 129 unread messages in my python-bugs folder - > only because I wiped it out a week or so ago. If I get a follow up on a bug report that I don't care about, I just delete the message - I won't have time to go back to it for the next 25 years, at which time I can find the issue (and the text I just received) quite easily. > However, I think the real problem lies in the basic fact that developers > tend to scratch their itches. Python is mature enough that many of the bugs > are obscure and don't really affect anyone in the main Python community. I agree; this indeed is the reason for the status quo. > In the example that spawned this thread: Jonathon could mail me saying > "could you please have a look at bug xxx. It has been reviewed by Skip and > isn't really that deep". I would say "sure", and have a cursory look at the > bug, noting Skip's comments. Worst case I would ask a few question to try > and make me look clever, fail miserably, and apply the patch locally. I > would build Linux and Windows, and run the test suite. Then just check it > in. I think this process could work: it makes it ultimately the responsibility of the patch author to get her patch into shape. It also does not need any change in software infrastructure: those parts of the process that deal with assigning/unassigning would always be initiated by the patch submitter. There will be always patches where the submitter does not care about whether it gets in or not, either; those may remain unreviewed under this process. I think nobody would have a problem with that. Then, there are patches where authors care but don't know how to advance it: for those, it would be good if someone would write up your proposal and stick it into the SF FAQ, or Andrew's python-dev document. Finally, this process does not help with bugs that have no patches; I guess Mozilla has no recipe for these, either - it comes back to your observation that few people care about obscure problems. Regards, Martin
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