Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I have seen it said that one very useful activity is reviewing patches. Of the issues in the tracker, it is not immediately clear to me what is required of such a review. Many of these patches appear to be bundled in with feature requests, leaving the question of whether the review it judging the quality of the code or the merits of the feature request.
Both may be needed, depending on the issue. But see below.
That's correct.
I do realise that these issues have probably been previously discussed on this list. Let's take as an example the following issue:
Briefly, as I read it: Raymond proposed that his named tuples be used with Barry and Skip's csv module. He got a short reply from Skip but went on to other things. A year later, two new people entered and energized the discussion, Barry said 'useful', Skip commented on the details. The second half of the discussion has been thrashing out and getting consesus on the devilish details. What is devilish is that the merits of feature details sometimes interacts with code quality. This is pretty typical. It looks to me like this will be in 3.1.
often discussion is carried out entirely in the tracker (and if you aren't on the nosy list of the issue, you will miss the discussion completely)
Every Friday a list of opened and closed issues is posted. Even if you have nothing to say, you can add yourself to the nosy list.
I feel a lot more qualified to evaluate code quality than desirability of function.
Good, in the sense that I believe the former is rarer and more needed. There are 5 broad areas covered in the tracker: 1. C code, interpreter core 2. C code, extension modules 3. Python code, modules 4. Tests of the above 5. Documentation of above Where to start? What interests you most? Or look at the thread "draft 3.1 release schedule" and posts giving features aimed at 3.1. For instance, http://bugs.python.org/issue5237 has a new C patch that could use at least a preliminary eyeball, pending the more polished patch. Help adding the test patches would be welcome by me and, I am sure, by Eric. Terry Jan Reedy