[Python-Dev] Encouraging developers

"Martin v. Löwis" martin at v.loewis.de
Tue Mar 6 10:24:15 CET 2007

Stephen J. Turnbull schrieb:
> An informal version of this process is how XEmacs identifies its
> Reviewers (the title we give to those privileged to authorize commits
> to all parts of XEmacs).  People who care enough to make technical
> comments on *others'* patches are rare, and we grab the competent ones
> pretty quickly.

My experience exactly. Besides Georg Brandl, I think this was also
how Raymond Hettinger started his regular contributions to Python.

> The mess is not "total", as Josiah Carlson points out.  To the extent
> that it is a mess, it is the consequence of a process similar to the
> one you propose to institutionalize.

It wasn't clear to me that this is the case, but I think you are exactly
right. Those libraries that are now considered a mess had been ad-hoc 
contributions in many cases, with a single use case (namely the one of 
the original contributor). The contributor is not to blame, of course:
he could only contribute what he has experience with. I wouldn't blame
the committers who accepted the libraries, either - much of Python's
value is in "libraries included". So to fix "the total mess", one has
to replace the libraries with better ones, were available, learning from
past experience to not accept libraries that had not been widely tested
"in the field".

> Second, where the stdlib module is closely bound to the core, the
> maintainer ends up being the group of core developers.  It can't be
> any other way, it seems to me.

It might be that individuals get designated maintainers: Guido maintains
list and tuple, Tim maintaines dict, Raymond maintains set, I maintain
configure.in. However, I doubt that would work in practice.


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list