[Python-Dev] Addition of further status options to tracker
brett at python.org
Wed Mar 11 01:15:21 CET 2009
[adding python-dev back on to the email]
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 15:51, Tennessee Leeuwenburg <tleeuwenburg at gmail.com
>>> Pretty much. I've got two views. One is that I'd like to search for
>>> issues that are up for grabs which I could take over, hack on, and generally
>>> not get underfoot of core development activity.
>> OK, let's do what is necessary to flag issues like this so that people can
>> do this. That's why I like the "Under Development" status. Could rename
>> "open" to "available" or "unsolved" to more clearly mark those issues as up
>> for grabs.
> Yep. I like that too.
>> Typically we use nosy lists to get specific people's attention. That or
>> the priority gets bumped if it turns out to be an important issue. Lastly,
>> people can email python-dev directly asking for input if all other attempts
>> to get attention have failed.
> Now that I am understanding the tracker system better, I think it's fine to
> just add reviews to the tracker issue and that will be enough to grab
> attention. There is always the option of emailing the list.
>> In other words you want some way to flag an issue that just needs to be
>> talked about but is not ready to be coded. So status would go "open/new" ->
>> "chatting/needs help" -> "under dev" -> "closed" with "pending" fitting in
>> when necessary. Sound about right?
>> My worry with this is making sure the field gets updated.
> Sounds exactly right. I'm not so concerned about this field being updated.
> If it doesn't, but someone is clearly working on it, then it's not really
> holding anyone back. Tracker janitors (although I do prefer gardeners!) can
> worry about whether the field is set correctly, and developers can just get
> on with doing their work.
> I like:
> "Needs help / Chatting"
> "Under development"
> "Pending feedback"
> very much.
As long as "Under Dev" and "Pending" are time-based to switch to "chatting"
or "closed" respectively, I am fine with this. What do other people think?
Too heavy-handed? Just right to help people get people involved?
> <snip> ...I can understand that, but I would worry that if we flag
>> something as under development it will simply be ignored by other people
>> when they could actually help out (write the docs for someone, etc.). Or
>> even worse that someone gets to a certain point with the development, walks
>> away short of finishing the work (say doesn't get the docs finished) and
>> everyone continues to ignore the issue because it is still flagged as under
>> If we can come up with a simple solution to this problem (perhaps have
>> issues set to under development with no activity shift down a status level
>> after a month) then maybe we will have something everyone can be happy with.
> Maybe we can just revert anything that is under development back to "needs
> help" after a month of inactivity?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev