On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:06:41 +0200, francis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> BTW. from a Non-Dev point of view: > >> > >> I just would like to be able to know how far or ready is a patch for > >> manually review and then commit. > > > > Yes, that's part of the goal of my making the state of an issue > > more fine grained. > > > IMHO it would also help to define what kind of work is "external" or > "internal" (from the core-dev-commiter point view). Then that external > steps should be, as far as possible, done (e.g. "ready for review", > "ready for commit") before the core-dev looks at it (she/he should just > do "internals": review, commit or reject :-)).
Yep, if you read it, that's what my stage structure is designed to do. There are only two gating points: will we fix this, and is this committable. Everything else non-committers can decide (though core will no doubt chime in as we do now), and even the first of those can be triage[*]. --David [*] Or, as Antoine has advocated, anyone...though I worry that that will leave people feeling like they did work for nothing if a veto on commit comes from core later. _______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
