On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 07:11, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen <at> xemacs.org> writes: >> >> There *is* a process problem, though I don't claim to have an idea how >> to solve it. Some developers (especially well-known is Martin van >> Loewis) are trying to address this with the "one committer's review >> for five reviews" offer, but maybe there are even better ways to do >> it. However, this is a *different problem* from "lost patches", which >> many projects do suffer from, and shouldn't be called by that name, >> which is insulting to the Python committers. > > I don't think it is insulting (I say that as a young Python committer), and I do > think it is fair to call them "lost patches". Perhaps not after four months, but > when a good patch hasn't been committed after two years, it is potentially lost > because the code base has changed a lot since that and 1) the patch doesn't > apply completely anymore 2) it must be reassessed whether the patch is > good/useful/necessary with respect to the current code base, which can be tricky. > It is unfortunate when a good patch for a real issue doesn't get applied during the current development cycle. But I honestly think, in general, the important ones do get looked at and handled. Yes, some slip through the cracks, but overall I think we do pretty well. > As for reviews, we don't seem to use Rietveld a lot, although it offers a nice > interface for comfortably viewing changes, and possibly commenting them. The > overhead of having to open a separate issue in Rietveld and upload the patch > there is a bit annoying, though. My hope is that some day we get around to fixing this and getting a code review application tied into the issue workflow so it is no more than pressing a button. -Brett
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