Martin v. Loewis wrote:
- for each patch, try to find out if it a) is present (if not, post a notice saying that the upload is missing), b) applies to the Python source code cleanly (if not, either update the patch yourself, or request that the submitter does that), c) does what it says it does (no detailed analysis necessary yet) (if it is not clear what the patch does, or how it does that, request clarification); d) is appropriate for inclusion, by comparison to other features that are already in Python (if not, ask submitter for a rationale why this patch should be included, pointing out your objections), e) has undesirable side effects (if yes, ask the submitter for an evaluation why these side effects are acceptable), f) is complete (new features need documentation, bug fixes need regression test cases if possible), g) is correct: try compiling it to see whether it works, try to come up with boundary cases to see whether it still works, inspect it to see if you find any flaws...
I think that the current assignment solution causes much of the delays we are seeing + python-devs are pretty busy these days with other stuff (needed for pizza and beer). I for one wouldn't mind if other developers with some time at hand jump in on already assigned patches and bug reports to help out. Martin does this on a regular basis and I find it really helps. Another strategy would be for developers to take over maintenance of certain parts of the code. We should then probably have a list of maintainers for the various parts on the patch submission list to make the assignment process easier for the submitting parties. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH _______________________________________________________________________ eGenix.com -- Makers of the Python mx Extensions: mxDateTime,mxODBC,... Python Consulting: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.egenix.com/files/python/