Victor Stinner writes:
Le Wednesday 31 December 2008 08:46:09 Stephen J. Turnbull, vous avez écrit :
Would you review your own code in the same way that other committers review their own?
I'm unable to review my own code.
Of course not, in the formal "software process" sense. But in some sense to commit code you have to have reviewed it, that's all I meant.
Is it was you called "An open issue is not a lost patch."?
Yes, and I'll say it again:
An open issue is not a lost patch. It's an open issue.
Even after a review, some issues stay open for months or years.
There *is* a process problem, though I don't claim to have an idea how to solve it. Some developers (especially well-known is Martin van Loewis) are trying to address this with the "one committer's review for five reviews" offer, but maybe there are even better ways to do it. However, this is a *different problem* from "lost patches", which many projects do suffer from, and shouldn't be called by that name, which is insulting to the Python committers.
In particular, we know that effort is devoted to tracking open issues by the developers, both individually and as a formal matter (the weekly report). It is insufficient in some sense, but way better than, say, in XEmacs (a project I'm supposed to be leading :-/ ). And IIRC the statistics show that the number of issues closed is of the same order of magnitude as those opened, although consistently lower by 10-20%. Actually, I think that's pretty amazing for a project that has nobody whose salary depends on getting the numbers up.
You don't have to pay attention to me,
No, your opinion is interresting. I hope that my answers will help you to understand my expectations about an svn account :-)
Well, as I say I have no vote. But I hope your answers will help to convince any doubters among the committers.