[Python-Dev] Moving bugs and patches through the pipeline more quickly

[Guido van Rossum]

>     * Assign it to just about anybody so someone is notified.  The
>       exceptions here are that I don't think you should assign bugs
>       to one of the PythonLabs Five (Guido, Tim, Barry, Jeremy,
>       Fred).  Let one of the other developers decide if it warrants
>       their attention.

Please don't do this!  We tried this for a while, but bugs and patches
actually got lost this way because quite a few developers were
apparently on permanent leave and just let the bug/patch rot in SF.

Assigning to a random *active* developer may seem to work, because if
this developer isn't the right person, he will quickly do triage and
pass it to someone more appropriate -- or simply unassign it if
there's nobody appropriate.  But if the person is away (e.g. on
vacation or on an extended business trip), the other developers will
be less likely to pay attention to the bug than when it's not assigned
at all.

Playing games with the bug priority to get someone's attention is also
the wrong thing to do -- only the experienced developers should raise
the priority of a bug, based on its real importance; we have rules
like "everything priority 7 or higher must be fixed before the next
release".  (Lowering priority on submission is fine of course, if you
know you have a low priority bug report.)

> As the Python user base grows I think we do need a way to expand the
> developer pool without a lot of effort because the amount of
> feedback is always going to be proportional to the number of users.
> It's not immediately obvious to me how this should happen.  The
> first expansion from the original five to roughly the current crop
> of developers wasn't terribly difficult, because for the most part
> Guido et al either knew them personally or had a long enough
> exposure to them on the net to feel confident they would make
> positive contributions.  The overall community is large enough now
> that not all potentially good developers become visible easily.
> Requiring a somewhat rigorous vetting process will consume more time
> for the current developers and distract people from time working on
> the code base.  On the other hand, not requiring any vetting is
> likely to allow the occasional donkey into the corral with the
> horses.

I would certainly like to see more applications from people interested
in getting developer status, even if it means I'll have to do
semi-formal "interviews" or reference checks myself.  How can we
encourage the good developers that exist to help?

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)