On Tuesday 06 March 2007 6:00 am, Martin v. Löwis wrote: > Phil Thompson schrieb: > >>> Any ideas for fixing this problem? > >> > >> A better patch-tracker, better procedures for reviewing patches > >> surounding this new tracker, one or more proper dvcs's for people to > >> work off of. I'm not sure about 'identifying core developers' as we're > >> all volunteers, with dayjobs for the most part, and only a few people > >> seem to care enough about python as a whole. > > > > I don't think that that is true. I think a lot of people care, but many > > can't do anything about because the barrier to entry is too great. > > He was talking about the committers specifically who don't care about > Python as-a-whole, and I think this is true. But I also believe that > many contributors don't "care" about Python as-a-whole, in the sense > that they are uninterested in learning about implementation details of > libraries they will never use. What they do care about is the problems > they have, and they do contribute patches for them. > > >> While submitting patches is good, there's a lot more to it than just > >> submitting the 5-line code change to submit a bug/feature, and reviewing > >> takes a lot of time and effort. > > > > So there is something wrong there as well. > > > >> I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for > >> help from the submitters like we do, or ask them to write tests and docs > >> and such. > > > > Of course it's not unreasonable. I would expect to be told that a patch > > must have tests and docs before it will be finally accepted. However, > > before I add those things to the patch I would like some timely feedback > > from those with more experience that my patch is going in the right > > direction. > > This cannot work. It is very difficult to review a patch to fix a > presumed bug if there is no test case. You might not be able to > reproduce the patch without a test case at all - how could you then > know whether the patch actually fixes the bug?
Please read what I said again. Yes, a patch must be reviewed before submission. Yes, a patch when submitted must include docs and test cases. I'm talking about the less formal process leading up to that point. The less formal process has a much lower barrier to entry, requires much less effort by the "reviewer", is the period during which the majority of the teaching happens, and will result in a better quality final patch that will require less effort to be put in to the final, formal review. > So I really think patches should be formally complete before being > submitted. This is an area were anybody can review: you don't need > to be an expert to see that no test cases are contributed to a > certain patch. > > If you really want to learn and help, review a few patches, to see > what kinds of problems you detect, and then post your findings to > python-dev. People then will comment on whether they agree with your > review, and what additional changes they like to see. Do you think this actually happens in practice? There is no point sticking to a process, however sensible, if it doesn't get used. Phil _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
