Hi,
I'd like to suggest granting commit access to Yury Selivanov, primarily to assist with maintenance of the inspect module.
That's currently an orphaned module in the experts index, and Yury was a driving force behind getting PEP 362 (the new introspection API) accepted for Python 3.3, and has also picked up on a number of introspection support issues we missed when adding other features to Python 3.4 (like inspect.signature not handling functools.partialmethod correctly - it simply didn't occur to me or Alon to add test cases for that). He's also created a reimplementation of inspect.getfullargspec for Python 3.4 (not yet merged, but close to being so) that will allow almost all existing introspection code to benefit from the Argument Clinic changes, not just the code that has been ported to the new PEP 362 introspection API.
Yury's interested in the idea of commit access, and is comfortable with our approach to code review and automated testing. As usual when nominating someone, I'm happy to handle the mentoring period and addressing any questions Yury may have about the mechanics of actually pushing changes rather than having to wait for me or Larry or someone else to merge them on his behalf.
Regards, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On 1/19/2014 1:30 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to suggest granting commit access to Yury Selivanov, primarily to assist with maintenance of the inspect module.
That's currently an orphaned module in the experts index, and Yury was a driving force behind getting PEP 362 (the new introspection API) accepted for Python 3.3, and has also picked up on a number of introspection support issues we missed when adding other features to Python 3.4 (like inspect.signature not handling functools.partialmethod correctly - it simply didn't occur to me or Alon to add test cases for that). He's also created a reimplementation of inspect.getfullargspec for Python 3.4 (not yet merged, but close to being so) that will allow almost all existing introspection code to benefit from the Argument Clinic changes, not just the code that has been ported to the new PEP 362 introspection API.
Yury's interested in the idea of commit access, and is comfortable with our approach to code review and automated testing. As usual when nominating someone, I'm happy to handle the mentoring period and addressing any questions Yury may have about the mechanics of actually pushing changes rather than having to wait for me or Larry or someone else to merge them on his behalf.
For anyone looking, he has posted on the tracker as both 'yselivanov' (2 years) and 'Yury.Selivanov' (3 1/2 years). He has submitted patches on about 12 issues, 7 closesd, and commented on another 10. These are mostly issue I have not be active on, but the numbers are typical for when we think about promoting someone.
Terry
On dim., 2014-01-19 at 15:34 -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
For anyone looking, he has posted on the tracker as both 'yselivanov' (2 years) and 'Yury.Selivanov' (3 1/2 years). He has submitted patches on about 12 issues, 7 closesd, and commented on another 10. These are mostly issue I have not be active on, but the numbers are typical for when we think about promoting someone.
That's rather on the low side. Browsing through the Mercurial logs, not many commits actually bear Yury's name.
Since Nick is vouching for him, I'm not against access being granted, but he'll probably need a fair amount of mentoring before being trustable for autonomous work, IMHO.
Regards
Antoine.
Is it enough to know the python process and how to write good patches? I don't see why Yury would become but not Vajrasky Kok.
I never liked how much time it takes to become a "core developer". Developers know what it means to be core developer and usually ensure that they don't make mistake.
I didn't see Yury's work, so I'm unable to pronouce me about him. I'm just trying to figure out how his profile is different from Vajrasky's profile. By the way, I also proposed to mentor Vajrasky.
Victor Le 19 janv. 2014 21:34, "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy@udel.edu> a écrit :
On 1/19/2014 1:30 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to suggest granting commit access to Yury Selivanov, primarily to assist with maintenance of the inspect module.
That's currently an orphaned module in the experts index, and Yury was a driving force behind getting PEP 362 (the new introspection API) accepted for Python 3.3, and has also picked up on a number of introspection support issues we missed when adding other features to Python 3.4 (like inspect.signature not handling functools.partialmethod correctly - it simply didn't occur to me or Alon to add test cases for that). He's also created a reimplementation of inspect.getfullargspec for Python 3.4 (not yet merged, but close to being so) that will allow almost all existing introspection code to benefit from the Argument Clinic changes, not just the code that has been ported to the new PEP 362 introspection API.
Yury's interested in the idea of commit access, and is comfortable with our approach to code review and automated testing. As usual when nominating someone, I'm happy to handle the mentoring period and addressing any questions Yury may have about the mechanics of actually pushing changes rather than having to wait for me or Larry or someone else to merge them on his behalf.
For anyone looking, he has posted on the tracker as both 'yselivanov' (2 years) and 'Yury.Selivanov' (3 1/2 years). He has submitted patches on about 12 issues, 7 closesd, and commented on another 10. These are mostly issue I have not be active on, but the numbers are typical for when we think about promoting someone.
Terry
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
On 01/19/2014 02:06 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Is it enough to know the python process and how to write good patches?
I would say that's half the battle, but not all of it [1].
I don't see why Yury would become but not Vajrasky Kok.
I haven't worked with Yury, but I have worked with Vajrasky on three issues for Enum. He was a huge help in finding bugs, and in getting a patch going, but two of those three patches I had to seriously rework (the third, that I could use as-is, was very minor).
I never liked how much time it takes to become a "core developer". Developers know what it means to be core developer and usually ensure that they don't make mistake.
I have to disagree. Developers have the same range in talents and concerns as other folks; not every developer is a "core developer". Likewise, it is possible to be extremely helpful without being a core developer. While I wasn't able to just use Vajrasky's patches as-is, I am still grateful that he found the bugs and inconsistencies so they could be fixed.
-- ~Ethan~
[1] "Knowledge is half the battle."
What's the other half?
25% red lasers
25% blue lasers
More seriously, I would say a core-dev should also be teachable, able to communicate effectively, and good at debugging, to name just a few things.
On 20 Jan 2014 08:06, "Victor Stinner" <victor.stinner@gmail.com> wrote:
Is it enough to know the python process and how to write good patches? I
don't see why Yury would become but not Vajrasky Kok.
In this case, it's Yury's specific contributions to an orphan module and being a co-author of an accepted PEP related to that module that motivate my suggestion, rather than general bug fixing (which I agree would typically involve a wider range of contributions).
I see it as similar to the way we grant commit access to authors of "add a module to the standard library" PEPs as a matter of course so they can continue maintaining it.
Cheers, Nick.
I never liked how much time it takes to become a "core developer".
Developers know what it means to be core developer and usually ensure that they don't make mistake.
I didn't see Yury's work, so I'm unable to pronouce me about him. I'm
just trying to figure out how his profile is different from Vajrasky's profile. By the way, I also proposed to mentor Vajrasky.
Victor
Le 19 janv. 2014 21:34, "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy@udel.edu> a écrit :
On 1/19/2014 1:30 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to suggest granting commit access to Yury Selivanov, primarily to assist with maintenance of the inspect module.
That's currently an orphaned module in the experts index, and Yury was a driving force behind getting PEP 362 (the new introspection API) accepted for Python 3.3, and has also picked up on a number of introspection support issues we missed when adding other features to Python 3.4 (like inspect.signature not handling functools.partialmethod correctly - it simply didn't occur to me or Alon to add test cases for that). He's also created a reimplementation of inspect.getfullargspec for Python 3.4 (not yet merged, but close to being so) that will allow almost all existing introspection code to benefit from the Argument Clinic changes, not just the code that has been ported to the new PEP 362 introspection API.
Yury's interested in the idea of commit access, and is comfortable with our approach to code review and automated testing. As usual when nominating someone, I'm happy to handle the mentoring period and addressing any questions Yury may have about the mechanics of actually pushing changes rather than having to wait for me or Larry or someone else to merge them on his behalf.
For anyone looking, he has posted on the tracker as both 'yselivanov' (2
years) and 'Yury.Selivanov' (3 1/2 years). He has submitted patches on about 12 issues, 7 closesd, and commented on another 10. These are mostly issue I have not be active on, but the numbers are typical for when we think about promoting someone.
Terry
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
On 20 January 2014 14:39, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014 08:06, "Victor Stinner" <victor.stinner@gmail.com> wrote:
Is it enough to know the python process and how to write good patches? I don't see why Yury would become but not Vajrasky Kok.
In this case, it's Yury's specific contributions to an orphan module and being a co-author of an accepted PEP related to that module that motivate my suggestion, rather than general bug fixing (which I agree would typically involve a wider range of contributions).
I see it as similar to the way we grant commit access to authors of "add a module to the standard library" PEPs as a matter of course so they can continue maintaining it.
Ping?
Yury's someone I run *my* inspect module changes by, so it would definitely make my life easier if I could +1 his patches and he could take care of committing and pushing them himself.
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014, at 07:01 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 20 January 2014 14:39, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014 08:06, "Victor Stinner" <victor.stinner@gmail.com> wrote:
Is it enough to know the python process and how to write good patches? I don't see why Yury would become but not Vajrasky Kok.
In this case, it's Yury's specific contributions to an orphan module and being a co-author of an accepted PEP related to that module that motivate my suggestion, rather than general bug fixing (which I agree would typically involve a wider range of contributions).
I see it as similar to the way we grant commit access to authors of "add a module to the standard library" PEPs as a matter of course so they can continue maintaining it.
Ping?
Yury's someone I run *my* inspect module changes by, so it would definitely make my life easier if I could +1 his patches and he could take care of committing and pushing them himself.
I don't see anyone complaining too loudly, so have him send his key to hgaccounts@python.org.
participants (7)
-
Antoine Pitrou -
Benjamin Peterson -
Eric V. Smith -
Ethan Furman -
Nick Coghlan -
Terry Reedy -
Victor Stinner