[Python-Dev] Appeal for reviews

[Nikolaus Rath]

Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> writes:
[Quote conveniently rearranged]
>> I've accumulated a number of patches in the issue tracker that are
>> waiting for someone to review/commit/reject them. I'm eager to make
>> corrections as necessary, I just need someone to look the work that I've
>> done so far:
>
> Do you consider any of these 'ready-to-commit'?
> * before-fail, after-pass test?
> * required doc changes?
> * tested patch for all versions that should be patched?
> * any new Misc/ACKS entry needed (for new person other than you)?
> * checked for stray end-of-line whitespace?

Actually, they should all be in this stage (assuming make patchcheck
would complain about eol whitespace). I wouldn't call it ready-to-commit
though, I'm sure a second pair of eyes would find issues that need to be
addressed. But I'm at a point where I don't see any possible issues.

In more detail:

>> * http://bugs.python.org/issue20951 (SSLSocket.send() returns 0 for
>>    non-blocking socket)

This contains a docpatch for 3.4 that (I believe) should be applied in
any case. In addition, there does not seem to be a consensus whether the
same behavior should be kept for 3.5 (in that case the docpatch should
be applied for 3.5 as well), deprecated in 3.5 (patch available as
well), or changed right away (no patch attached yet, I'm waiting for
consensus). Maybe it would be enough if some more developers could chime
in? I'm not sure how issues like this are typically decided.

>> * http://bugs.python.org/issue1738 (filecmp.dircmp does exact match
>>    only)

Contains testcase, docpatch and code-patch reviewed and updated by
me. New feature, so should go only into 3.5 and applies cleanly.

I just updated the patch to include the original author in Misc/ACKS.

>> * http://bugs.python.org/issue7776 (http.client.HTTPConnection
>>    tunneling is broken)

Contains testcase, docpatch and code-patch. Applies cleanly to 3.4, and
I just refreshed the patch for 3.5. Not sure if this should be fixed in
2.7?

>> * http://bugs.python.org/issue20177 (Derby #8: Convert 28 sites to
>>    Argument Clinic across 2 files)

No test case and no doc patch necessary (I believe). I have some doubts
about the patch though, see
http://bugs.python.org/issue20177#msg209153. 

>> * http://bugs.python.org/issue19414 (iter(ordered_dict) yields keys
>>    not in dict in some circumstances)

There are several different ways to fix this problem. I have created a
patch implementing one of them. It applies cleanly to 3.4 and 3.5 - not
sure why the review link does not show up. I've just attached the same
patch again, maybe that helps.

>> * http://bugs.python.org/issue20578 (BufferedIOBase.readinto1 is
>>    missing)

Contains doc update, test case, and code patch. Applies cleanly to 3.5,
and should not go in older versions (new feature).

Martin v. Löwis has kindly started reviewing this.

>> * http://bugs.python.org/issue21057 (TextIOWrapper does not support
>>    reading bytearrays or memoryviews)

Contains test case, and code patch. I don't think the documentation
needs to be updated. Patch applies cleanly to 3.5, and should not go in
older versions (new feature).

Martin v. Löwis has kindly started reviewing this as well :-).


Best,
-Nikolaus


-- 
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«