Mercurial style patch submission (Was: MSI: Remove dependency from win32com.client module (issue4080047))
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:45:45 +0000 techtonik@gmail.com wrote:
I see no reason for b.p.o bureaucracy. Mercurial-style workflow [1] is more beneficial to development as it doesn't require switching from console to browser for submitting changes.
Ok, why don't you contribute to Mercurial instead?
If you don't want to receive a stupid answer, why don't you read the link and say what you don't like in this approach in a constructive manner? http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/ContributingChanges#The_basics:_patches_by... -- anatoly t.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 15:50, anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com>wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:45:45 +0000 techtonik@gmail.com wrote:
I see no reason for b.p.o bureaucracy. Mercurial-style workflow [1] is more beneficial to development as it doesn't require switching from console to browser for submitting changes.
Ok, why don't you contribute to Mercurial instead?
If you don't want to receive a stupid answer, why don't you read the link and say what you don't like in this approach in a constructive manner?
http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/ContributingChanges#The_basics:_patches_by... -- anatoly t.
Don't send your patch to the BugTracker<http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/BugTracker> - it can't be reviewed there, so it won't go anywhere!
We do fine with reviews on the tracker, and there has been some on and off work on integrating Rietveld. For the people actually doing the work here, accepting patches on the tracker and dealing with them there has been a reasonably effective workflow, enough that we don't see a need to change it.
Patches go to mercurial-devel@selenic.com<http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/MailingLists> - no subscription necessary!
As you were directed to in an earlier email by Georg, there is now a way to report bugs via email without requiring any subscription. *report*@*bugs*.* python*.*org is the address.* * * *>>> *Because this is a community project and our developers are very busy, patches will sometimes fall through the cracks. If you've gotten no response to your patch after a few days, feel free to resend it. This is true of any workflow on just about any open source project. Whether it's email or a bug tracker, not everything is going to be acknowledged, reviewed, fixed, or rejected immediately. We feel that the tracker allows us to, well, keep track of things. It works for us. What they do works for them, and I'm sure it works great. Could it work for python-dev? Maybe. Is it worth changing anything when no one who is doing the actual work has voiced a need for change? Absolutely not.
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:50:18 +0200 anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:45:45 +0000 techtonik@gmail.com wrote:
I see no reason for b.p.o bureaucracy. Mercurial-style workflow [1] is more beneficial to development as it doesn't require switching from console to browser for submitting changes.
Ok, why don't you contribute to Mercurial instead?
If you don't want to receive a stupid answer, why don't you read the link and say what you don't like in this approach in a constructive manner?
Very simple: I don't want to be spammed with tons of patches, patch reviews, and issue comments. Also, I want the history of issue discussions to be easily accessible from permanent, issue-specific URLs, rather than search through mailing-list archives to understand why a change was made. I appreciate that you refrained from giving a stupid answer, however.
2011/1/31 anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com>:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:45:45 +0000 techtonik@gmail.com wrote:
I see no reason for b.p.o bureaucracy. Mercurial-style workflow [1] is more beneficial to development as it doesn't require switching from console to browser for submitting changes.
Ok, why don't you contribute to Mercurial instead?
If you don't want to receive a stupid answer, why don't you read the link and say what you don't like in this approach in a constructive manner?
As I understand it, there used to be patches@python.org. I'm not sure why this was discontinued, so perhaps someone more senior should chime in. :) -- Regards, Benjamin
If you don't want to receive a stupid answer, why don't you read the link and say what you don't like in this approach in a constructive manner?
As I understand it, there used to be patches@python.org. I'm not sure why this was discontinued, so perhaps someone more senior should chime in. :)
As a mailing list, it was unmaintainable, since there was no tracking of what patches still need consideration. So a web-based bug tracker got into use (although I forgot the name of the tracker software that was used before SourceForge). Regards, Martin
W dniu 2011-02-01 01:24, "Martin v. Löwis" pisze:
As a mailing list, it was unmaintainable, since there was no tracking of what patches still need consideration. So a web-based bug tracker got into use (although I forgot the name of the tracker software that was used before SourceForge).
JitterBug! Best regards, Łukasz
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 22:50, anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com> wrote:
If you don't want to receive a stupid answer, why don't you read the link and say what you don't like in this approach in a constructive manner?
Mercurial is a much smaller project, so it has different needs. It would be nice if you could respect the process the developers on any project have laid out for their project and assume they know what works best for them. Cheers, Dirkjan
participants (7)
-
"Martin v. Löwis" -
anatoly techtonik -
Antoine Pitrou -
Benjamin Peterson -
Brian Curtin -
Dirkjan Ochtman -
Łukasz Langa