...

...

...

...

"Martin" == Martin v Löwis writes:

Martin> I have suggested a procedure in the past, which never has Martin> been executed so far. I promise that I will stick to it if Martin> somebody actually executes it. Here it goes: Martin> - For every patch you want to get reviewed, review 10 Martin> (ten) other patches. I think 10 is way too high; I would call it prohibitive for anyone who isn't already primarily a Python hacker. I agree it should be more than 1 for 1 for several reasons, but I'd be willing to bet you get excellent results from 3:1 or even 2:1. Even if you think that risks being a burden on your time, since you've had no takers yet (and it's been a while since the last time I saw your proposal), I'd say that lowering the "price" to 5:1 is a reasonable idea, and not very risky. You can always raise the price again if you get 50 useful reviews by next Tuesday.<wink> -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.

[Oleg Broytmann]

http://python.org/sf/754022 This is the biggest and the oldest. It hangs in the tracker since Python 2.2. In short, it makes the webbrowser.py runs through _tryorder list of browsers and trie to run every browser until one started successfully. Currently webbrowser.py tries to run a browser and if it fails - stops trying. Assigned to Fred Drake.

This should probably wait until Py2.5 The functionality, command line launching and successive browser tries, appear useful. Feel free to bug Fred to at least comment on the desirability of the patch. If he gives it a thumbs up, almost anyone else can review and apply this one.

http://python.org/sf/784089 A program to scan python files and list those require -*- coding -*- directive. Reviewed by Marc-Andre Lemburg and Andrew Kuchling.

I will clean this one up a bit and add it Tools/scripts.

http://python.org/sf/821862 Makes ftplib.py a bit more RFC959-compliant. The RFC requires the FTP protocol to be run not over TCP but over telnet. For most people there is no difference but there is a subtle different for those who use non-ASCII encodings: chr(255) - a special character in telnet - requires a special handling. My patch adds a toggle that allows to turn telnet on (actually, it only doubles chr(255) in command stream, but it is one of two things that are required for FTP-over-telnet). By default it is off to preserve backward compatibility.

Is there a real need for this? As you mention in the patch, FTP is usually not run over telnet. This module has been around for years and there has been zero user demand for the feature. I suspect this is a waste of bits.

http://python.org/sf/1038388 The smallest and the simplest of all. 3 lines patch that adds __main__ to whichdb.py, so one can run it on the command line:

$ whichdb.py *.db

This is harmless. I will apply it for you. No charge, Raymond

Oleg. -- Oleg Broytmann http://phd.pp.ru/

phd@phd.pp.ru

Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python- dev/python%40rcn.com

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

I think 10 is way too high; I would call it prohibitive for anyone who isn't already primarily a Python hacker.

Some kind of prohibition is necessary for the process of "pushing" patches. If too many people actually perform the procedure, I may not be able to keep my promise of giving their patches more attention. Notice that this is my own, private procedure - the condition under which *I* will make my volunteer time available. Other core developers may have different procedures, such as giving such requests moderate priority, trying to review the patches right away, or completely ignoring such requests entirely (I believe the majority of people with commit access falls in that category, as only a small fraction of committers commits SF patches regularly). People who don't want to use that procedure don't need to at all. There is apparently a constant backlog of 200..300 patches. Patches that look more important to regular reviewers will get attention, patches that somehow seem doubtful will get skipped over - over and over again. If you want to push one of these patches, and you don't want to use the procedure of guaranteed review that I promise, you can still use the begging procedure that most people come up with.

I agree it should be more than 1 for 1 for several reasons, but I'd be willing to bet you get excellent results from 3:1 or even 2:1. Even if you think that risks being a burden on your time, since you've had no takers yet (and it's been a while since the last time I saw your proposal), I'd say that lowering the "price" to 5:1 is a reasonable idea, and not very risky. You can always raise the price again if you get 50 useful reviews by next Tuesday.<wink>

That might be an option indeed. So, Oleg, as a special offer, I will do this at a 5:1 ratio :-) Regards, Martin

On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 02:20:12AM -0400, Raymond Hettinger wrote:

[Oleg Broytmann]

...

http://python.org/sf/754022 This is the biggest and the oldest. It hangs in the tracker since Python 2.2. In short, it makes the webbrowser.py runs through _tryorder list of browsers and trie to run every browser until one started successfully. Currently webbrowser.py tries to run a browser and if it fails - stops trying. Assigned to Fred Drake.

This should probably wait until Py2.5

Of course.

...

http://python.org/sf/784089 A program to scan python files and list those require -*- coding -*- directive. Reviewed by Marc-Andre Lemburg and Andrew Kuchling.

I will clean this one up a bit and add it Tools/scripts.

Thank you!

...

http://python.org/sf/821862

Is there a real need for this? As you mention in the patch, FTP is usually not run over telnet.

It often runs over telnet - I use ProFTPd which implements telnet without an option to turn it off. The problem is that I cannot use ftplib.py to grab files from my own server :( Most Unix servers implement telnet, but 7-bit ASCII-only filenames hide the fact. Making ftplib.py more RFC-compliant with backward compatibility is a good thing, in my opinion. Oleg. -- Oleg Broytmann http://phd.pp.ru/ phd@phd.pp.ru Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.

...

...

...

...

"Martin" == Martin v Löwis writes:

Martin> If you want to push one of these patches, and you don't Martin> want to use the procedure of guaranteed review that I Martin> promise, you can still use the begging procedure that most Martin> people come up with. Sure. I don't suggest reducing price in order to get you to review more patches. What I like about your procedure is that it encourages people to get involved in helping each other in developing Python. While python-dev is really excellent for mentoring design and implementation, this looks like a good way to get people involved in reviewing. I think that activity is normally under-staffed in most projects. I'd-rather-be-coding-too-ly y'rs, -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.

Carlos Ribeiro wrote:

So... if the RFC states that it should run over telnet, then standard implementations should do it. But, according to Martin's proposed rules -- which I entirely agree with -- my vote still doesn't count, as I haven't reviewed any patch yet; so please take it only as a general opinion on the subject.

Martin's rules are a bargain where reviewing a certain number of existing patches will get him to have a look at a particular patch you'd like him to review (I'd guess it doesn't even have to be one you wrote - just one you'd like someone with commit access to consider). Your opinion on patches definitely counts even if you haven't made it to Martin's magic number - otherwise his bargain wouldn't make much sense! Cheers, Nick.