Terry Reedy wrote: >> My unglamorous proposal is to review bugs & patches (starting with the >> oldest) and resolve at least 200 of them. > Funny, and nice!, that you should propose this. I thought of adding > something like this to the Python wiki as something I might mentor, but > hesitated because reviewing *is* not glamourous, because Google wants > code-writing projects, and because I am not one to mentor C code writing. I suppose the "new code" emphasis may make writing a proposal to fix bugs an exercise in futility. :) I'll submit it anyway, since I don't have any new whiz-bang features/applications/frameworks that I think deserve to be inflicted upon anybody. > The thing I worry about, besides you or whoever getting too bored after a > week, is that a batch of 50-100 nice new patches could then sit unreviewed > on the patch tracker along with those already there. Although I didn't state it explicitly, my intention was to push each item to completion, so that at the end bug+patch is closed with new code checked into svn. Since I should probably restrict the proposal to fixing things that actually require new code to be written (assuming closing out bogus/inappropriate bugs doesn't meet Google's expectations for SoC), I'll revise my number down to the 25-75 range so that there's time to make sure they're actually completed.
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