[Python-Dev] Becoming a python contributor

Armin Rigo arigo@tunes.org
Sat, 2 Nov 2002 16:40:34 -0800 (PST)

Hello Martin,

On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:09:43PM +0100, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> It is my impression that all people who want CVS write access already
> have it (with Gustavo perhaps being one of a few exceptions).

If I may step in here -- let describe my own position, as I feel it might be shared by a number of
bystanders. I have submitted a couple of bugs and patches, and am getting some sense of what is
expected. I often run into pending patches and bugs that I'd like to help review, some that I even
feel I could accept or reject (according to your guidelines), but I'm not sure I should be trusted
CVS access right now.

What about adding an SF outcome/resolution status ("reviewed" or "proposedly closed" or even
"low-hanging fruit" :-)  meaning that the issue has been reviewed and discussed, according to the
guidelines, and that the reviewer thinks the item should now be closed (commited or rejected) ? I 
feel it is a better solution than just assigning the item to an arbitrary core developer.

This lets anyone step in as a reviewer, which is a status that should be clearly documented: review
other people's work and not your own, of course, and closely follow the guidelines. (SF might get in
the way if it disallows third-parties to change an issue's outcome or resolution status; reviewers 
could instead use an inline keyword or ask the author to change the status.)