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
Anne Archibald wrote:
> I think here's the rub: when I hear "patch review system" it sounds to
> me like an obstacle course for getting code into the software. Maybe
> it's justified, but I think at the moment there are many many things
> that are just awaiting a little bit of attention from someon
2008/5/15 Francesc Alted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I don't need to say that this procedure was not used for small or
> trivial changes (that were fixed directly), but only when the issue was
> important enough to deserve the attention of the mate.
I think here's the rub: when I hear "patch review sy
David Huard wrote:
>
> There is about 5 commits/day, I don't think it's a good idea to wait
> for a vote on each one of them.
There is definitely a balance to find, and I am not convinced it would
work well with subversion (it really makes sense to have those review
with merge request, not per
A Wednesday 14 May 2008, Ondrej Certik escrigué:
> Hi,
>
> I read the recent flamebate about unittests, formal procedures for a
> commit etc. and it was amusing. :)
> I think Stefan is right about the unit tests. I also think that
> Travis is right that there is no formal procedure that can assure
On Thu, May 15, 2008 12:06 am, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I read the recent flamebate about unittests, formal procedures for a
> commit etc. and it was amusing. :)
> I think Stefan is right about the unit tests. I also think that Travis
> is right that there is no formal procedure that can assu
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:08 PM, David Huard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/5/14 David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 13:58 -1000, Eric Firing wrote:
>> >
>> > What does that mean? How does one know when there is a consensus?
>>
>> There can be a system to make this
2008/5/14 David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 13:58 -1000, Eric Firing wrote:
> >
> > What does that mean? How does one know when there is a consensus?
>
> There can be a system to make this automatic. For example, the code is
> never commited directly to svn, but to a g
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 13:58 -1000, Eric Firing wrote:
>
> What does that mean? How does one know when there is a consensus?
There can be a system to make this automatic. For example, the code is
never commited directly to svn, but to a gatekeeper, and people vote by
an email command to say if th
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Eric Firing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I read the recent flamebate about unittests, formal procedures for a
>> commit etc. and it was amusing. :)
>> I think Stefan is right about the unit tests. I also think that Travis
>> is righ
Ondrej Certik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I read the recent flamebate about unittests, formal procedures for a
> commit etc. and it was amusing. :)
> I think Stefan is right about the unit tests. I also think that Travis
> is right that there is no formal procedure that can assure what we
> want.
>
> I thin
Hi,
I read the recent flamebate about unittests, formal procedures for a
commit etc. and it was amusing. :)
I think Stefan is right about the unit tests. I also think that Travis
is right that there is no formal procedure that can assure what we
want.
I think that a solution is a patch review. Ev
12 matches
Mail list logo
