On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On 08.07.15 01:45, Raymond Hettinger wrote: >>> >>> P.S. I don't think python-dev post was necessary or helpful (and I still >>> haven't had a chance to read the whole thread). It would have been >>> sufficient to assign the tracker entry back to me. >> >> >> Well, I'll open new issue and assign it to you for every your commit that >> looks questionable to me. > > > That sounds like a fine solution, and a good conclusion of the thread. > Whenever I have a non-trivial commit to do, I create a patch and upload it to the tracker, with an explanation of the problem and the solution. If after a few days no one commented, I commit it and close the issue. If a problem arises post-commit, people can reopen the issue and comment there. Since the issue number is included in all the commits, it is also easy to find related discussions. Creating an issue after the fact is an acceptable solution too, but I would prefer to see an issue before the commit. FWIW I only consider simple documentation issues and typo/whitespace fixes as "trivial", YMMV. Best Regards, Ezio Melotti > -- > --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) >
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