Re: [Python-Dev] Goals for patch selection for 2.1.2
Martin von Loewis wrote Then I come back to my original question: What is your schedule for 2.1.2 then?
Darn. Was hoping you'd missed that I'd put that question off :) At this point, I'm still trawling CVS - I hope to have an estimate in a day or so (work stuff permitting), or the end of the week at the latest. My gut feel right now is that it's a couple of weeks to finish trawling the CVS logs (geez you guys commit a lot of changes) and checking them in carefully).
I don't mind if it is either very tight or very lose, but I think there should be a schedule (which can be adjusted as needed). I think the following milestones should appear: - deadline for contributing new patches - deadline for selecting and integrating CVS mainline patches - release of a release candidate - release
Sounds like a good set of milestones. As I said, though, right now I'm just not sure.
IMO, it isn't important that *all* patches that are desirable for 2.1.2 really get integrated by the second deadline. Instead, what gets
Nope. I'd like to be able to say, though, that "for this release, there are some known bugs in pyexpat/the floating point overflow/ whatever" - at least let people know.
P.S. Although I certainly do promise to indicate all pyexpat patches that should go into 2.1.2 :-)
I'm glad to hear it :) Anthony -- Anthony Baxter <anthony@interlink.com.au> It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
Darn. Was hoping you'd missed that I'd put that question off :) At this point, I'm still trawling CVS - I hope to have an estimate in a day or so (work stuff permitting), or the end of the week at the latest. My gut feel right now is that it's a couple of weeks to finish trawling the CVS logs (geez you guys commit a lot of changes) and checking them in carefully).
Remember you are Patch Czar, not the slave of patches. You could restrict yourself to incorporate only patches that people propose. If you want systematic scanning, we could try to come up with a script that automatically reviews all commit messages of patches since 2.1.1 whether these mention an SF bug. We could then further automate scanning to produce the number of changed lines, to exclude 'large' changes. Perhaps anybody in the readership of this software already has code that does such things? Regards, Martin
If you want systematic scanning, we could try to come up with a script that automatically reviews all commit messages of patches since 2.1.1 whether these mention an SF bug. We could then further automate scanning to produce the number of changed lines, to exclude 'large' changes.
Slightly dangerous though -- some bugfixes were never reported to SF.
Perhaps anybody in the readership of this software already has code that does such things?
No, but you can start with Tools/scripts/logmerge.py which parses CVS log output and sorts it by date. The best way to scan for SF patch refs is probably to search for 6-digit numbers... There's too much diversity otherwise in the SF references :-( --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
Martin von Loewis wrote:
Remember you are Patch Czar, not the slave of patches. You could restrict yourself to incorporate only patches that people propose.
If you want systematic scanning, we could try to come up with a script that automatically reviews all commit messages of patches since 2.1.1 whether these mention an SF bug. We could then further automate scanning to produce the number of changed lines, to exclude 'large' changes.
As it says in PEP 6, one thing I was hoping for was that people submitting patches would indicate whether a patch ought to be considered for inclusion in patch releases for prior formal releases. One way to do that would be for people to check in patches to the prior version's trunk, and then the Patch Czar could decide which patches belong in a release branch. Of course, that's assuming I understand how CVS works, which is probably false. ;-) Alternatively, we could agree on some text tag format for use in SF comments. -- --- Aahz (@pobox.com) Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/ Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista We must not let the evil of a few trample the freedoms of the many.
[Anthony Baxter]
Darn. Was hoping you'd missed that I'd put that question off :) ...
Aren't you glad you asked an innocent question about bugfix releases on c.l.py? Aren't you glad I replied? Heh heh -- that's how all Python work gets done in the end <wink>. tag-you're-it-ly y'rs - tim
participants (5)
-
aahz＠rahul.net -
Anthony Baxter -
Guido van Rossum -
Martin von Loewis -
Tim Peters