On 21 July 2015 at 19:40, Nick Coghlan firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 20 July 2015 at 22:34, Ben Finney email@example.com wrote:
Paul Moore firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
Again, I'm sorry to pick on one sentence out of context, but it cut straight to my biggest fear when doing a commit (on any project) - what if, after all the worrying and consideration I put into doing this commit, people disagree with me (or worse still, I made a mistake)? Will I be able to justify what I decided?
That seems quite healthy to me. On a collaborative project with effects far beyond oneself, yes, any change should be able to be justified when challenged.
No, that's not how this works: if folks are thinking that being a Python user, or even a CPython core developer, means that we're entitled to micromanage core developers by demanding extensive explanations for any arbitrary commit we choose, they're thoroughly mistaken. Only Guido has that privilege, and one of the reasons he's as respected as he is is his willingness to trust the experience and expertise of others and only rarely exercise his absolute authority.
I wouldn't even agree that Guido is entitled to micromanage us. He is certainly entitled to demand explanations etc if he feels appropriate
All of this is why the chart that I believe should be worrying people is the topmost one on this page: http://bugs.python.org/issue?@template=stats
Both the number of open issues and the number of open issues with patches are steadily trending upwards. That means the bottleneck in the current process isn't getting patches written in the first place, it's getting them up to the appropriate standards and applied.
Yet the answer to the problem isn't a simple "recruit more core developers", as the existing core developers are also the bottleneck in the review and mentoring process for new core developers.
sidebar: So, anyone here familiar with theory of constraints - e.g. 'The Goal', 'Critical Chain' etc? Might be interesting to do some brainstorming in that shape if folk are interest.
Having open idle patches is I think generally acknowledged as a poor thing. I think of them as inventory in a manufacturing plant: they take up space, they take effort to create, they offer no value [until they're actually shipped to users], and they have direct negatives (tracker is harder to work with due to the signal-to-noise ratio, perception of the project suffers, contributors make the rational discussion not to contribute further...).
Lets assume that our actual goal is to ship new Python versions, offering more and better things to users.
AFAIK we're not lacking any infrastructure resources - we have enough buildbots, we have freely available compilers for all platforms.
In my view, those stats are a useful tool we can use to ask ourselves "Am I actually helping with this contribution, or at the very least, not causing harm?":
I like this approach :). But - can we go further, can we actively protect core committer time such that they waste less of it? Adding core committers won't help if the problem isn't the number of committers, but rather the amount of the time that they can devote to Python that actually gets spent on committer-activities.
Iterating on a patch someone else put up can help. Making sure its passing tests, trying it with ecosystem projects and giving feedback.
OTOH, make sure that what we measure provokes things that help our goal :). Double edged sword this.
Make no mistake, sustainable open source development is a genuinely hard problem. We're in a much better position than most projects (being one of the top 5 programming languages in the world has its benefits), but we're still effectively running a giant multinational collaborative software development project with close to zero formal management support. While their are good examples we can (and are) learning from, improving the support structures for an already wildly successful open source project without alienating existing contributors isn't a task that comes with an instruction manual :)