[Catalog-sig] PyPI pull request

anatoly techtonik techtonik at gmail.com
Sat May 12 17:09:44 CEST 2012

Hi Daniel,

You're request and proposed action would be nice if it used Mercurial,
but it uses Git + GitHub and have
no idea how to apply it to Mercurial + Bitbucket. If I understand you
correctly for every 7 commits in queue I need to make a separate clone
and commit it separately. That's far from the that beautiful promise
DVCS made. =)

All commits are available in pull request separately. If you take
another look at
you'll see there is an ongoing discussion over a questionable commit
with Martin. Feel free to comment on any revision. I can rework them
one by one on request if they are taking too much time to review.

Your wish is valid and well understood, but for specific big features.
For a series of small clean up changes such as this one this places a
more constrain on the person submitting changes. So unless there is a
comment that code is too complicated, I'd prefer to save this extra
time to polishing other aspects.

There are also 4 more commits in my copy waiting for this review to
complete, which I deliberately doesn't add to this request to

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Daniel Greenfeld <pydanny at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anatoly,
> Here's a major issues with your pull request:
> It's not atomic enough. PyPI is a massive effort so any pull request
> should be as small as possible. For example, "running without sentry
> client" should be just a single pull request. By combining multiple
> "actions" into one pull requests, you've made it harder for the PyPI
> authors to evaluate your work. Which means they'll be less inclined to
> review it.
> Break this up into 3 separate pull requests. It's easy to do with
> branching, and the maintainers of the project will appreciate you for
> it.
> In fact, one thing we did with Open Comparison
> (http://djangopackages.com, http://pyramid.opencomparison.org, and
> soon http://python.opencomparison.org) that as helped us a lot as
> maintainers is write a formal contributing document that spells this
> out and more. See:
> http://opencomparison.readthedocs.org/en/latest/contributing.html
> and in your case, specifically:
> http://opencomparison.readthedocs.org/en/latest/contributing.html#how-to-get-your-pull-request-accepted
> I suggest to Richard and Martin they adopt something similar. Or they
> can use our contributing rules in the same manner as Read the Docs:
> https://github.com/rtfd/readthedocs.org/blob/master/docs/contribute.rst
> Danny
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 2:21 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Anybody to merge my changes from
>>> https://bitbucket.org/techtonik/pypi-techtonik ?
>> Richard told me he is busy preparing for the PyCon AU and
>> administering ongoing PyGame, so no help here.
>> Martin told it will take time. So, anybody else at least to review and comment?
>> https://bitbucket.org/loewis/pypi/pull-request/1/fix-imports-add-logging-to-console-in
>> I also sent mail to PSF requesting a new `pydotorg` account on
>> Bitbucket, so that there will be a permanent home for official mirror
>> for PyPI that can be found using Bitbucket search along with other
>> open repositories for web to send pull requests to.
>> In the meanwhile there few more clean up changes, one of which loosens
>> dependency on M2Crypto, which is not installable in virtualenv if you
>> don't have SWIG installed systemwide. Although it doesn't remove it
>> completely yet. The goal is to make pycrypto an optional alternative
>> for M2Crypto for an easy development.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Catalog-SIG mailing list
>> Catalog-SIG at python.org
>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
> --
> 'Knowledge is Power'
> Daniel Greenfeld
> http://pydanny.com

More information about the Catalog-SIG mailing list