On 21.03.15 13:46, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 19 March 2015 at 19:28, Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka at gmail.com> wrote: >> Here is list of my ready for review patches. It is incomplete and contains >> only patches for which I don't expect objections or long discussion. Most >> of them are relative easy and need only formal review. Most of them wait >> for a review many months. > > It's worth noting that If there are changes you feel are genuinely low > risk, you can go ahead and merge them based on your own commit review > (even if you also wrote the original patch). Yes, but four eyes are better than two eyes. I make mistakes. In some issues I hesitate about documentation part. In some issues (issue14260 and issue22721) I provided two alternative solutions and need a tip to choose from them. While I am mainly sure about the correctness of the patch, I'm often hesitate about the direction. Is the bug worth fixing? Is the new feature worth to be added to Python? Thanks Alexander, Amaury, Benjamin, Berker, Demian, Éric, Ethan, Martin, Paul, Victor and others that responded on my request.
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