On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:45:29AM +0100, Victor Stinner wrote:
The truth is that too few of my patches get a review :-/ Maybe I should wait longer, but then it becomes harder for me to handle many patches.
The problem here is partly that maintainers don't think that all of the changes are worth spending time on.
I'm not specifically talking about *your* changes here, but Raymond's comment also referred to other committers.
In the code that I maintain (and wrote), about 4/5th of the kind of changes that Raymond complained about were just unnecessary. Some were stylistic preferences, others came with a "potential bug" reasoning that turned out to be wrong.
To be clear, I'm NOT talking about changes like this one:
Those have a clear purpose and don't disturb.
FASTCALL has a purpose, but only if a function is actually a hotspot. For the decimal changes that I reverted this wasn't the case, so it is perhaps "just nice to have for 3.8".
I'm still very interested of course to have an official FASTCALL API for third party modules that don't (and probably should not) use AC.
- Historically, if there was creator or maintainer of the code who was still active, that person would always be consulted and have a final say on whether a change should be applied. Now, we have code constantly being changed without consulting the original author (for example, the recent and catastrophic random initialization bug was due to application of a patch without consulting the author of _randommodule.c and the maintainer of random.py, or this change to sorted(), or the changes to decimal, etc).
What do you mean by "author"? As you wrote, Python is now 26 years old, so it had a very long history, and each file has a very long list of "authors". I guess that you mean more a "maintainer".
Hmm, no: for example _collectionsmodule.c is written and maintained by Raymond; Modules/_decimal/* has exactly one author.
My problem is that I'm not aware of any explicit list of maintainers.