PEP on patch processing
Hi! Martin v. Löwis has previously posted a guide on how to successfully process patches on this mailinglist. I just wanted to ask if there is interest in a PEP about that topic, because I couldn't find any relevant information on python.org. If you do not agree with me I still would recommend to put it on the developers pages on python.org. ... just an idea regards, Michael Bartl
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003, Michael Bartl wrote:
Martin v. Löwis has previously posted a guide on how to successfully process patches on this mailinglist.
I just wanted to ask if there is interest in a PEP about that topic, because I couldn't find any relevant information on python.org.
Given the existence of PEP 3, this sounds like an excellent idea! -- Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "It is easier to optimize correct code than to correct optimized code." --Bill Harlan
Michael Bartl <zeddicus@satokar.com> writes:
I just wanted to ask if there is interest in a PEP about that topic, because I couldn't find any relevant information on python.org.
A PEP would not be appropriate: it would indicate the need for BDFL pronouncement on the procedures presented, or consensus within some group, when I think neither consensus nor BDFL pronouncement is necessary. Instead, a plain web page on python.org would be sufficient. Regards, Martin
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Michael Bartl <zeddicus@satokar.com> writes:
I just wanted to ask if there is interest in a PEP about that topic, because I couldn't find any relevant information on python.org.
A PEP would not be appropriate: it would indicate the need for BDFL pronouncement on the procedures presented, or consensus within some group, when I think neither consensus nor BDFL pronouncement is necessary. Instead, a plain web page on python.org would be sufficient.
Hmmmm.... While I'd agree with you in the absence of anything else, it seems to me that the existence of PEP 3 indicates that this subject is PEP-worthy. Unless you want to argue that PEP 3 should be removed?... -- Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "It is easier to optimize correct code than to correct optimized code." --Bill Harlan
Martin v. Löwis writes:
A PEP would not be appropriate: it would indicate the need for BDFL pronouncement on the procedures presented, or consensus within some group, when I think neither consensus nor BDFL pronouncement is necessary. Instead, a plain web page on python.org would be sufficient.
If some4one writes up a reST document describing this, it would be easy enough to add it to the dev/ area. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> PythonLabs at Zope Corporation
Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
Martin v. Löwis writes:
A PEP would not be appropriate: it would indicate the need for BDFL pronouncement on the procedures presented, or consensus within some group, when I think neither consensus nor BDFL pronouncement is necessary. Instead, a plain web page on python.org would be sufficient.
If some4one writes up a reST document describing this, it would be easy enough to add it to the dev/ area.
Just so people don't go too far with this, I am going to be typing up something about the Python development process. It is going to be my entry for a talk at PyCon this year. So something that encompasses all of this will get written up by December. If it isn't a total piece of literary trash I will add it to /dev on the site. -Brett
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:35:05PM -0400, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
Brett C. writes:
So something that encompasses all of this will get written up by December. If it isn't a total piece of literary trash I will add it to /dev on the site.
Sounds good to me!
+1 We could still put the content of the current PEP draft into a reST format and put it up on /dev for now?
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:35:05PM -0400, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
Brett C. writes:
So something that encompasses all of this will get written up
by
December. If it isn't a total piece of literary trash I will add it to /dev on the site.
Sounds good to me!
+1
We could still put the content of the current PEP draft into a reST
"Michael Bartl" <zeddicus@satokar.com> wrote in message news:20030926093438.GA2288@satokar... format
and put it up on /dev for now?
Please do. If there were good step-by-step instructions on how to review a bug or patch submission, and 'official' encouragement to do as much/many as one can, even if not all steps, then I might actually try to do some -- and possibly before December. Terry J. Reedy
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:23:20 -0700, Brett C. <bac@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
So something that encompasses all of this will get written up by December. If it isn't a total piece of literary trash I will add it to /dev on the site.
Note that http://www.python.org/patches/ has some material on patch processing that also belongs in /dev/. --amk
"A.M. Kuchling" <amk@amk.ca> wrote in message news:oprv3uz1v6qmnqtt@news.gmane.org...
Note that http://www.python.org/patches/ has some material on patch processing that also belongs in /dev/.
I check all the links on ../dev/ I noticed and found no direct link to /patches/. I think there should be (Explanations list, bottom of page) The /devfaq/ has this entry: 3.2. How to submit a patch? Please read the Patch Submission Guidelines at http://www.python.org/patches A recent copy can be found in the Appendix of this FAQ. Q. Which of these two nearly identical pages is more recent? Guess:Appendix A2 has "It's almost a year since Python 1.5.2 was released". /patches/ is undated (dating pages in one change I would suggest for the site) but the differences suggest to me that it is newer. Please delete the older version. Directing would-be new submitters to both seems senseless and can only discourage, not encourage. Terry J. Reedy cc webmaster@python.org
participants (7)
-
A.M. Kuchling -
Aahz -
Brett C. -
Fred L. Drake, Jr. -
martin＠v.loewis.de -
Michael Bartl -
Terry Reedy