Terry Reedy writes:
> On 4/15/2014 12:15 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > The only thing I don't like about it[3] is that it puts an
> > explicit price on core developer time ("my time is worth 5x as
> > much as yours").
>
> Not really true
But that is *not* your call! It's for the woul
On 4/15/2014 12:15 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I've always really liked MvL's 5-reviews-to-get-1 approach.
The only thing I don't like about it[3] is that it puts an explicit
price on core developer time ("my time is worth 5x as much as
yours").
Not really true since any of the 5 could b
On 14 Apr 2014 08:42, "R. David Murray" wrote:
>> Or to put it another way, I'd like to encourage contributors who
>> want to get commit access to focus just as much on doing good
>> reviews as they do on writing new patches. Currently the focus is
>> all on getting patches accepted.
>Huh,
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2014 08:42, "R. David Murray" wrote:
> > When considering who we give commit access to, I think we would be
> > well served to start giving more weight to the quality of the code
> > reviews that someone does. Producing good patc
On 14 Apr 2014 08:42, "R. David Murray" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:18:13 -0400, Nick Coghlan
wrote:
> > On 14 Apr 2014 01:56, "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
> > >
> > > mar...@v.loewis.de writes:
> > >
> > > > For gaining commit access, it's really more important that the
patch
> > > > is
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:18:13 -0400, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2014 01:56, "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
> >
> > mar...@v.loewis.de writes:
> >
> > > For gaining commit access, it's really more important that the patch
> > > is factually finished, than that it's author believes it to. If pe
On 14 Apr 2014 01:56, "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
>
> mar...@v.loewis.de writes:
>
> > For gaining commit access, it's really more important that the patch
> > is factually finished, than that it's author believes it to. If people
> > get it right the first time often enough, they get commit a
mar...@v.loewis.de writes:
> For gaining commit access, it's really more important that the patch
> is factually finished, than that it's author believes it to. If people
> get it right the first time often enough, they get commit access.
Yes, that's what I had in mind, but I guess I explained
Quoting "Stephen J. Turnbull" :
Your modesty is not in question. :-) An explicit statement that "These
are ready" allows an experienced developer to give you feedback not
only about whether the patches are in fact ready, but whether your
judgment about patches is ready for commit privileges --
"Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> Am 13.04.14 08:36, schrieb Stephen J. Turnbull:
> > - core-mentorship is *explicitly* for poking Those Who Can Help
> >(among other requests for help);
>
> It would be worth an experiment. I know that I wouldn't have reviewed
> Nikolaus' patches if he had po
Nikolaus Rath writes:
> I've described the status of each bug in more detail in my reply
> Terry, but generally all the issues contain a testcase (i.e., so I
> consider them confirmed), do not require a PEP, contain a patch that
> needs review and include documentation updates. I have signed
"Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> Am 13.04.14 08:36, schrieb Stephen J. Turnbull:
>
>> I admit the tone was biased toward nagging or "blaming the victim",
>> and again I apologize for causing misunderstanding. Nikolaus isn't
>> "wrong" for posting here. My claim is that in current circumstances,
>> co
"Stephen J. Turnbull" writes:
> I apologize for the tone. I need to go *right* now, and can't fix
> that. Really, I'm sympathetic and my goal is not just to defend
> python-dev, but to help you get the reviews your work deserves.
> Please read with that in mind.
Will do - but why the rush? Be a
Terry Reedy writes:
[Quote conveniently rearranged]
>> I've accumulated a number of patches in the issue tracker that are
>> waiting for someone to review/commit/reject them. I'm eager to make
>> corrections as necessary, I just need someone to look the work that I've
>> done so far:
>
> Do you co
On 4/13/2014 2:46 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
As for the request "Are you sure that the patch is ready": this is
*very* difficult to answer for the author. We all have experienced
that patches that we considered good were critized out of nowhere,
and I just did the same to Nikolaus. There is ju
Am 13.04.14 08:36, schrieb Stephen J. Turnbull:
> I admit the tone was biased toward nagging or "blaming the victim",
> and again I apologize for causing misunderstanding. Nikolaus isn't
> "wrong" for posting here. My claim is that in current circumstances,
> core-mentorship would be a more *eff
Am 13.04.14 03:07, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2014, at 17:30, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> I apologize for the tone. I need to go *right* now, and can't fix
>> that. Really, I'm sympathetic and my goal is not just to defend
>> python-dev, but to help you get the reviews your wo
Le 13/04/2014 03:07, Benjamin Peterson a écrit :
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014, at 17:30, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I apologize for the tone. I need to go *right* now, and can't fix
that. Really, I'm sympathetic and my goal is not just to defend
python-dev, but to help you get the reviews your work de
Janzert writes:
> On 4/13/2014 2:36 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> [snip]
> > My claim is that in current circumstances,
> > core-mentorship would be a more *effective* channel because
> >
> > - core-mentorship is *explicitly* for poking Those Who Can Help
> > (among other requests f
On 4/13/2014 2:36 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
[snip]
My claim is that in current circumstances,
core-mentorship would be a more *effective* channel because
- core-mentorship is *explicitly* for poking Those Who Can Help
(among other requests for help);
- a surprisingly large (to me,
Benjamin Peterson writes:
> I don't think Nikolaus is wrong to post here. I often tell people that
> sometimes the only way to get your patches in is to constantly poke us
> about it.
I admit the tone was biased toward nagging or "blaming the victim",
and again I apologize for causing misunder
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014, at 17:30, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> I apologize for the tone. I need to go *right* now, and can't fix
> that. Really, I'm sympathetic and my goal is not just to defend
> python-dev, but to help you get the reviews your work deserves.
> Please read with that in mind.
I do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/12/2014 08:30 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> it's a matter of time before the contribution is integrated.
Our current backlog is bad enough that many contributions are effectively
wasted: they rot on the vine before they can be merged.
Tres
I apologize for the tone. I need to go *right* now, and can't fix
that. Really, I'm sympathetic and my goal is not just to defend
python-dev, but to help you get the reviews your work deserves.
Please read with that in mind.
Steve
Nikolaus Rath writes:
> I've accumulated a number of patches i
On 12 Apr 2014 18:08, "Terry Reedy" wrote:
> On 4/12/2014 2:58 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>
>> I realize that core developer time is scarce, so I have started to only
>> work on patches after I've confirmed that someone is available and
>> interested to review them. However, it would be great if som
On 4/12/2014 2:58 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
I've accumulated a number of patches in the issue tracker that are
waiting for someone to review/commit/reject them. I'm eager to make
corrections as necessary, I just need someone to look the work that I've
done so far:
If I did not have several Idle
Hello,
I've accumulated a number of patches in the issue tracker that are
waiting for someone to review/commit/reject them. I'm eager to make
corrections as necessary, I just need someone to look the work that I've
done so far:
* http://bugs.python.org/issue20951 (SSLSocket.send() returns 0 for
27 matches
Mail list logo
