On 06/03/07, Scott Dial <scott+python-dev at scottdial.com> wrote: > Martin v. Löwis wrote: > > Paul Moore schrieb: > >> Here's a random offer - let me know the patch number for your patch, > >> and I'll review it. > > > > Surprisingly (and I hope Scott can clarify that), I can't find anything. > > Assuming Scott's SF account is "geekmug", I don't see any open patches > > (1574068 was closed within 20 days by amk, last October). > > > > Sadly the sf tracker doesn't let you search for "With comments by". The > patch I was making reference to was 1410680. Someone else actually had > wrote a patch that contained bugs and I corrected them. And with that, I > was the last person to comment or review the patch in question. OK, as promised, I've reviewed it. I've recommended some actions from the original poster, or if they aren't forthcoming, then rejection. If you (Scott) want to pick this up, I'd recommend: 1. Open a new patch, with your recommended changes. 2. Address the comments made against Tony's patch, in yours. 3. Add a recommendation to Tony's patch that it be closed in favour of yours. Wait and/or canvas further opinion. That's about all I can do - to get the code *into* Python (if it's appropriate - remember that I've recommended rejection!) then you need someone with commit privileges to apply it. On the other hand, what I've done is similar to what you did - comment on someone else's patch. It seems relevant to me that the original poster (Tony Meyer) hasn't felt strongly enough to respond on his own behalf to comments on his patch. No disrespect to Tony, but I'd argue that the implication is that the patch should be rejected because even the submitter doesn't care enough to respond to comments! Paul.
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