"Five reviews to get yours reviewed"?
Way back in 2012, Martin Löwis declared a standing offer on this list to get issue patches reviewed: review five issues and he'll review one of yours. [1] Is that offer still around? Have any other devs made any similar offer?
I have a couple of patches outstanding, notably issue 20249 [2], which is a small change, has a patch, and has no activity or nosying since its creation.
More importantly, if there is such an offer, it'd be great to mention it somewhere, so people can know what they can do to move an issue forward. (And preferably with a link somewhere to what it means to review a patch - what it takes to make a useful and helpful review, which I'm not entirely sure of at the moment.) If there's not, is it something that could be considered? I'd love to see some downward movement on the Open Issues figure, but am not really sure what I can personally do to help.
ChrisA
[1] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-October/122157.html [2] http://bugs.python.org/issue20249
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Chris Angelico rosuav@gmail.com wrote:
I have a couple of patches outstanding, notably issue 20249 [2], which is a small change, has a patch, and has no activity or nosying since its creation.
And Benjamin Peterson has just looked into this one and committed it, not three minutes after I posted. Looks like that crossed in the ether :) Thanks!
I'm still willing to help out with reviewing, though!
ChrisA
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 11:11:01 +1100 Chris Angelico rosuav@gmail.com wrote:
More importantly, if there is such an offer, it'd be great to mention it somewhere, so people can know what they can do to move an issue forward. (And preferably with a link somewhere to what it means to review a patch - what it takes to make a useful and helpful review, which I'm not entirely sure of at the moment.) If there's not, is it something that could be considered? I'd love to see some downward movement on the Open Issues figure, but am not really sure what I can personally do to help.
It's such an unbalanced offer that it's understandable why it never worked. "One review against another" would be reasonable.
That said, it's not a mere issue of time. It's also that occasional contributors may not have (or may not feel they have) the required expertise to review other people's patches.
Regards
Antoine.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Antoine Pitrou solipsis@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 11:11:01 +1100 Chris Angelico rosuav@gmail.com wrote:
More importantly, if there is such an offer, it'd be great to mention it somewhere, so people can know what they can do to move an issue forward. (And preferably with a link somewhere to what it means to review a patch - what it takes to make a useful and helpful review, which I'm not entirely sure of at the moment.) If there's not, is it something that could be considered? I'd love to see some downward movement on the Open Issues figure, but am not really sure what I can personally do to help.
It's such an unbalanced offer that it's understandable why it never worked. "One review against another" would be reasonable.
That said, it's not a mere issue of time. It's also that occasional contributors may not have (or may not feel they have) the required expertise to review other people's patches.
Since there's a skill level difference, I can understand that I'd have to do more work than I'm asking someone else to do. But it's the other part that's more important. How would someone know whether or not they're capable of making useful reviews? Are there guidelines somewhere? Obviously you have to be able to apply the patch, compile (if appropriate), and probably run the test suite, but beyond that, what does it take to review? (The buildbots have the intelligence to do that.)
ChrisA
On 3/1/2014 7:11 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
Way back in 2012, Martin Löwis declared a standing offer on this list to get issue patches reviewed: review five issues and he'll review one of yours.
As I remember, he set a pretty low bar for 'review', lowing that I think you are thinking.
I have a couple of patches outstanding, notably issue 20249 [2], which is a small change, has a patch, and has no activity or nosying since its creation.
And the other?
More importantly, if there is such an offer, it'd be great to mention it somewhere, so people can know what they can do to move an issue forward. (And preferably with a link somewhere to what it means to
The question has been asked on core-mentorship list. I have considered making an offer, but haven't yet.
review a patch - what it takes to make a useful and helpful review, which I'm not entirely sure of at the moment.) If there's not, is it something that could be considered? I'd love to see some downward movement on the Open Issues figure, but am not really sure what I can personally do to help.
You are active on python-ideas, so build on that. There are 1551 open enhancement issues. Some have no response. Some should be rejected (for instance, if a couple of core devs have given negative responses, and none positive). Some should probably be closed, but possibly discussed on python-ideas. You could open either suggest that the OP post on python-ideas or open a discussion yourself. Many should have been discussed on python-ideas first, to garner support, but may have been posted before it existed, or at least before it was very well known. Some might be obsolete given what has otherwise been added, or by changes from py2 to py3. Any that are left open should be marked for 3.5.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Terry Reedy tjreedy@udel.edu wrote:
On 3/1/2014 7:11 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
I have a couple of patches outstanding, notably issue 20249 [2], which is a small change, has a patch, and has no activity or nosying since its creation.
And the other?
http://bugs.python.org/issue19494 has a patch that I uploaded, but it's more accurately someone else's patch and I just made a slight tweak to it.
http://bugs.python.org/issue20729 is an issue that I opened, and there's a patch at the issue, but I didn't write the patch.
Technically, neither really counts, but I was checking over the "Followed by you" issues list and saw that several had patches.
I'd love to see some downward movement on the Open Issues figure, but am not really sure what I can personally do to help.
You are active on python-ideas, so build on that. There are 1551 open enhancement issues. ... You could open either suggest that the OP post on python-ideas or open a discussion yourself.
Okay! I'll poke around at some issues tonight and see what I can find. *thumb up* Thanks for the pointer.
ChrisA
On 3/2/2014 1:51 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Terry Reedy tjreedy@udel.edu wrote:
On 3/1/2014 7:11 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
I have a couple of patches outstanding, notably issue 20249 [2], which is a small change, has a patch, and has no activity or nosying since its creation.
And the other?
http://bugs.python.org/issue19494 has a patch that I uploaded, but it's more accurately someone else's patch and I just made a slight tweak to it.
The line numbers in your patch do not match the line numbers in the 3.4 file. Did you prepare against 3.3?
The base issue here is a policy question about accommodating violations of the standard. The main maintainer of the urllib.requests module is Senthil. I would not decide the policy question.
http://bugs.python.org/issue20729 is an issue that I opened, and there's a patch at the issue, but I didn't write the patch.
I think Serhiy's patch is 'conservative', so I could look at it and see if I agree that it is the right minimal change.
Technically, neither really counts,
Martin's offer was to review a patch that one wanted reviewed, not necessarily one that one wrote.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Terry Reedy tjreedy@udel.edu wrote:
On 3/2/2014 1:51 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Terry Reedy tjreedy@udel.edu wrote:
On 3/1/2014 7:11 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
I have a couple of patches outstanding, notably issue 20249 [2], which is a small change, has a patch, and has no activity or nosying since its creation.
And the other?
http://bugs.python.org/issue19494 has a patch that I uploaded, but it's more accurately someone else's patch and I just made a slight tweak to it.
The line numbers in your patch do not match the line numbers in the 3.4 file. Did you prepare against 3.3?
Hmm. I definitely made sure it worked on 3.4, but IIRC the patch was manually fudged from the 2.7 patch, so possibly I didn't get everything perfect. But it does apply without errors:
rosuav@sikorsky:~/cpython$ hg impor aaa.patch applying aaa.patch
(Yeah, I'm not imaginative with temporary file names. So sue me. :)
ChrisA
participants (3)
-
Antoine Pitrou -
Chris Angelico -
Terry Reedy