[Python-Dev] cpython: Issue #11750: The Windows API functions scattered in the _subprocess and

[Antoine Pitrou]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:21:00 -0700
Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe
> <tshepang at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 18:55, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe
> >> <tshepang at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 17:51, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> >>>> and I'm not sure we'd like to
> >>>> accept code from convicted fellons (though I'd consider that a gray
> >>>> area).
> >>>
> >>> This makes me curious... why would that be a problem at all (assuming
> >>> the felony is not related to the computing field)?
> >>
> >> Because the person might not be trustworthy, period. Or it might
> >> reflect badly upon Python's reputation. But yes, I could also see
> >> cases where we'd chose to trust the person anyway. This is why I said
> >> it's a gray area -- it can only be determined on a case-by-case basis.
> >> The most likely case might actually be someone like Aaron Swartz.
> >
> > Even if Aaron submits typo fixes for documentation :)
> >
> > I would think that being core developer would be the only thing that
> > would require trust. As for a random a contributor, their patches are
> > always reviewed by core developers before going in, so I don't see any
> > need for trust there. Identity is another matter of course, but no one
> > even checks if I'm the real Tshepang Lekhonkhobe.
> 
> I don't think you're a core contributor, right? Even if a core
> developer reviews the code, it requires a certain level of trust,
> especially for complex patches.

I would say trust is gained through previous patches, not through
personal knowledge of the contributor, though.

Regards

Antoine.