> Am 08.08.2016 um 04:03 schrieb Daniel Glus <[email protected]>:
>
> Strainu <[email protected]> writes:
> > Regarding the proposed solutions, I am wary of the WMF "taking over"
> > the development of pwb (call me old fashion if you like, but I'm still
> > not over 2014). Also, more reviewers without a clear direction do not
> > help. I used to have +2 a while ago, but I dropped out anyway because
> > I couldn't understand where the main developers were taking pwb.
>
> I completely agree with you in the case of larger changes (e.g. architecture
> changes or feature requests), but I think there could be more reviewers to
> help with smaller patches, such as trivial or minor bug fixes. Surely one
> doesn't need a vision or direction to recognize that we should be keeping up
> with breaking API changes, or to help with the backlog of obsolete patches?
> (I'd help, but, again, a good patch reviewing guide would be immensely
> helpful.)
>
As I mentioned 6 mentioned 6 months ago there are a lot of trivial patches and
improvements for the framework as well as for scripts to be reviewed. I am
unhappy of this delay an ask me to fork and create my own branch because in my
production copy most files are changed and it is hard to keep an overview.
Anyway we have a lot of +2 coder but only a few who reviews the patches. We
could give some guys +2 rights. There are some trivial patches to get
experience in reviewing.
I know reviewing treaters sets is more difficult and time consuming. It is
easier to write the code than reviewing it when trying to understand the
proposed improvement and its code. Any test suite helps.
I would invite you to participate.
Best
Xqt
_______________________________________________
pywikibot mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/pywikibot
