2008/5/16 Anne Archibald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > How frequently does numpy receive patches that warrant review? The > zillion little doc fixes don't, even moderate-sized patches from > experienced developers probably don't warrant review.
Those moderately-sized patches are the ones that need review, especially. Review provides useful information on a couple of levels: a) Motivation -- why do we want/need this patch b) Functionality -- does it do what the developer intended it to c) Implementation -- is it written according to current best practices Level (a) is normally discussed on the mailing list, if needed. Level (b) is covered by unit tests, *if* those were written. Then, level (c) is where the main advantage lies: we can learn from one another how to develop better code. I am somewhat split in two on this one. I love the idea of patch review; it undoubtedly raises the quality of the codebase. That said, it comes at a cost in developer time, and I'm not sure we have that luxury (we don't have a Michael Abshoff, unfortunately). Making it optional might be a good compromise, although the person who wrote a patch isn't the best one to judge whether it should be reviewed (of course, we all think our code is good!). Regards Stéfan _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
