> > This is how we suck you in... ;) I see :-). Funny I didn't see this procedure mentioned in the patch submission guidelines ;-) You don't have to be an expert to review patches. The following > procedure would qualify you: > > 1. Find a patch that it appears no one has ever touched (0 comments, > assigned to nobody, etc.) > > 2. Pretty much every patch should include a unit test and > documentation. If something is missing from the patch you're looking > at, post a comment that says "Incomplete, no docs/tests". My own patch does not include documentation. I assume documentation would only be needed for patches that add new functionality (as opposed to fixing problems)? 3. Repeat until you've commented on five patches. > > If you find such clerical work beneath you, you can go further--build > Python from source, apply patches, and verify that they work. It's > not hard (google "python developer faq"). But it's not required. > I might try to do this, as time permits. Regards, Miguel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20070312/1a59c543/attachment.html
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