On Oct 19, 2004, at 23:56, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >>>>>> "Martin" == Martin v Löwis <martin at v.loewis.de> writes: > > Martin> I have suggested a procedure in the past, which never has > Martin> been executed so far. I promise that I will stick to it if > Martin> somebody actually executes it. Here it goes: > > Martin> - For every patch you want to get reviewed, review 10 > Martin> (ten) other patches. > > I think 10 is way too high; I would call it prohibitive for anyone who > isn't already primarily a Python hacker. > > I agree it should be more than 1 for 1 for several reasons, but I'd be > willing to bet you get excellent results from 3:1 or even 2:1. Even > if you think that risks being a burden on your time, since you've had > no takers yet (and it's been a while since the last time I saw your > proposal), I'd say that lowering the "price" to 5:1 is a reasonable > idea, and not very risky. You can always raise the price again if you > get 50 useful reviews by next Tuesday.<wink> Speaking of "price", perhaps PSF donations should be factored into getting a patch reviewed? I'm probably only saying this because I've donated, have some patches in the queue that aren't yet reviewed, and don't really have the spare time/energy to review a stockpile of Other People's Patches ;) I think my open-source-python-time is better spent working on the Mac distribution problems (py2app, bdist_pkg, etc.) than reviewing other people's patches... -bob
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