There are over 400 issues on the bug tracker that have not had a response to the initial message, roughly half of these within the last eight months alone. Is there a (relatively) simple way that we can share these out between us to sort those that are likely to need dealing with in the medium to longer term, from the simple short term ones, e.g very easy typo fixes? -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:02 PM Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
There are over 400 issues on the bug tracker that have not had a response to the initial message, roughly half of these within the last eight months alone. Is there a (relatively) simple way that we can share these out between us to sort those that are likely to need dealing with in the medium to longer term, from the simple short term ones, e.g very easy typo fixes?
Best thing I can think of is to post the Roundup search you did to find those 400 so thoseof us who can help can just start whittling them away. You could also share it with core-mentorship and explain we need help evaluating these issues with the caveat we have no idea how difficult it is to do the evaluation.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
Best thing I can think of is to post the Roundup search you did to find those 400 so thoseof us who can help can just start whittling them away. You could also share it with core-mentorship and explain we need help evaluating these issues with the caveat we have no idea how difficult it is to do the evaluation.
Here's a query: https://bugs.python.org/issue?@action=search&@columns=title,id,creator,activity,actor,status&@sort=activity&status=-1,1,3,4&message_count=1 -- Zach
On 07/31/2015 06:42 AM, Zachary Ware wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
Best thing I can think of is to post the Roundup search you did to find those 400 so thoseof us who can help can just start whittling them away. You could also share it with core-mentorship and explain we need help evaluating these issues with the caveat we have no idea how difficult it is to do the evaluation.
Here's a query:
This is nice, thanks. Note that this is missing the cases where more than one message was required, for example to send two attachments (a script as the use case, and a patch). Xavier
On 7/31/2015 7:30 AM, Xavier de Gaye wrote:
On 07/31/2015 06:42 AM, Zachary Ware wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
Best thing I can think of is to post the Roundup search you did
Just put 1 in the Message count box on the standard search page. Nothing special.
to find those 400 so thoseof us who can help can just start whittling them away. You could also share it with core-mentorship and explain we need help evaluating these issues with the caveat we have no idea how difficult it is to do the evaluation.
Here's a query: https://bugs.python.org/issue?@action=search&@columns=title,id,creator,activity,actor,status&@sort=activity&status=-1,1,3,4&message_count=1
This is nice, thanks. Note that this is missing the cases where more than one message was required, for example to send two attachments (a script as the use case, and a patch).
A second attachment by itself should not increase the message count. But people sometimes add a second message with or without an upload. Putting 1 in the Nosy count will also pick up orphans if no one else has been added as nosy. But the latter can be done by both the original poster or triagers or even automatically by the tracker itself. -- Terry Jan Reedy
Xavier de Gaye writes:
Here's a query:
This is nice, thanks. Note that this is missing the cases where more than one message was required, for example to send two attachments (a script as the use case, and a patch).
If this picks up more than 100 (I bet it's the kind of thing Mark used, so 400 is probably a reasonable estimate), we can clean these up and worry about the ones that fall through the cracks later. It's arbitrary but as far as I can see not unfair. Steve
On Jul 31 2015, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
There are over 400 issues on the bug tracker that have not had a response to the initial message, roughly half of these within the last eight months alone. Is there a (relatively) simple way that we can share these out between us to sort those that are likely to need dealing with in the medium to longer term, from the simple short term ones, e.g very easy typo fixes?
Nick recently mentioned that the PSF might be able to help, but that the initiative for that needs to come from the core developers. So why don't you guys ask the PSF to e.g. sponsor some of the work that no one feels motivated to do in their spare time? To avoid issues with some people being paid for work that others contribute in their free time one could introduce a new keyword in the tracker (say "ugly"). Whenever a core developer sees an issue that he[1] thinks should be worked on, but that he really does not want to do in his free time, he tags it with "ugly" and the issue becomes available for PSF-sponsored work. Best, -Nikolaus [1] I first wanted to write he/she - but are there actually any female core contributors? -- GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
On 07/30/2015 09:03 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
Nick recently mentioned that the PSF might be able to help, but that the initiative for that needs to come from the core developers. So why don't you guys ask the PSF to e.g. sponsor some of the work that no one feels motivated to do in their spare time?
To avoid issues with some people being paid for work that others contribute in their free time one could introduce a new keyword in the tracker (say "ugly"). Whenever a core developer sees an issue that he[1] thinks should be worked on, but that he really does not want to do in his free time, he tags it with "ugly" and the issue becomes available for PSF-sponsored work.
I'm a Django core developer. For the last half-year or so, the Django Software Foundation has (for the first time) paid a "Django Fellow" or two (currently Tim Graham) to work on core Django. For me the experience has been excellent. Having a Django Fellow significantly reduces the guilt-burden of being part of the core team; it frees me to do the work that I find most interesting, without needing to worry that other necessary work won't get done. Releases are made on time, new tickets are triaged, and security issues are attended to, whether I find the time to do it myself or not, because someone is paid to ensure it happens. I've never been the person on the core team who took on the majority of that burden as a volunteer, but I _still_ (perhaps especially?) feel the guilt-burden lifted. And having that burden lifted hasn't decreased the overall amount of time I devote to Django; it's increased it significantly, because spending time on Django has become more fun. Contributing to Django is also more fun now than it used to be (for core developers and, I think, for everyone else) because Tim has been able to devote significant chunks of time to infrastructure (the CI server and the GitHub workflow, e.g. having the test suite and several other automated code quality checks run automatically on every GitHub pull request) that nobody ever found time to do as a volunteer. So based on my experience with the transition to having a DSF-paid Fellow on the Django core team, and having watched important python-dev work (e.g. the core workflow stuff) linger due to lack of available volunteer time, I'd recommend that python-dev run, not walk, to ask the PSF board to fund a similar position for Python core. Of course there may be differences between the culture of python-dev and Django core that I'm not fully aware of that may make a difference in how things work out. And finding the right person for the job is critical, of course. I think the Django experience suggests that an existing long-time contributor who is already known and trusted by the core team is a good bet. Also that the Fellow needs to already have, or quickly gain, commit privileges themselves. For whatever it's worth, Carl
Carl Meyer schrieb am 31.07.2015 um 06:07:
So based on my experience with the transition to having a DSF-paid Fellow on the Django core team, and having watched important python-dev work (e.g. the core workflow stuff) linger due to lack of available volunteer time, I'd recommend that python-dev run, not walk, to ask the PSF board to fund a similar position for Python core.
Sounds good to me, too. There are already core developers and contributors being paid for their work in one way or another, either directly or by 'just' being allowed to work on CPython during some of their paid working hours. Guido's 50% are only the most prominent example. That has never been a problem. At the end of the day, everyone has to make a living somehow in order to find time at all to devote to CPython, so I don't see any room for an envy debate here. Getting a paid developer in for the background infrastructure work and the "stuff that needs to get done but wouldn't" seems like a good way to solve exactly these problems while making it more fun for the others to concentrate on what they like doing. Stefan
participants (9)
-
Brett Cannon -
Carl Meyer -
Mark Lawrence -
Nikolaus Rath -
Stefan Behnel -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Terry Reedy -
Xavier de Gaye -
Zachary Ware