>> You won't get any changes in to CPython by creating pull requests. We >> use http://bugs.python.org/ for that, sorry. > > Question -- is there a reason to abide by this rule for docs? That is, if we > could get a sympathetic core dev to look at pull requests for docs as part of > a streamlined process, would it cause problems? How do you communicate a "pull request"? On bitbucket, there is a "pull request" UI resulting in a tracker item being generated (and an email being sent), but hg.python.org doesn't have a notion of pull requests. Of course, you could use any communication means (email, telephone call, carrier pigeon) to request a pull from a "sympathetic core dev". > (What I'm really asking is whether or the bugs.python.org process is > considered critical for potentially minor doc changes and additions.) The sympathetic core dev is mostly free to bypass any submission process initially; commits that bypass established procedures will likely be questioned only after the fact. In the specific case, I'd be worried to verify that the submitter has provided a contributor form. That's easy to do in the bug tracker, but difficult to do in an offline pull request. Of course, for a really minor doc change (e.g. typo fixes), no contrib form is necessary. Regards, Martin
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