500 tracker orphans; we need more reviewers

Shashwat Anand anand.shashwat at gmail.com
Sat Jun 19 18:45:32 EDT 2010


Terry: Thanks for bringing this to notice.
Mark: Kudos for your effort in cleaning up bugs.python.org

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk>wrote:

> On 19/06/2010 03:37, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>> Go to the bottom of
>> http://bugs.python.org/issue?@template=search&status=1
>> enter 1 in the Message Count box and hit Search.
>>
>> At the moment, this gets 510 hits. Some have had headers updated, nearly
>> half have had a person add himself as 'nosy' (put 1 in the Nosy count
>> box to count those that have not), but none have a written response.
>>
>> In the past two weeks, I have commented on some old orphans and gotten a
>> couple of previously orphaned patches applied and the issue closed. But
>> I am not prepared to spend my whole life on this ;=).
>>
>> We need more issue reviewers.
>> Clearly.
>> If you want to contibute, opportunity is here.
>> With 500 orphans, and 2200 other open issues,
>> there must be something that matches your interests and abilities.
>> Use other search fields to narrow the choices.
>>
>> If you want to contibute to the tracker, this may help:
>> http://wiki.python.org/moin/TrackerDocs/
>> Then read examples of comments already there.
>>
>> Or consider my first-response comment to
>> http://bugs.python.org/issue8990
>>
>> To write that, I
>>
>> * verified the reported behavior, though I forgot to explicitly say so;
>> when doing so, include version and system (such as 3.1.2, WinXP), as
>> that is sometimes helpful.
>>
>> * read the relevant doc section and pasted it in to establish a basis
>> for discussion (the OP might have done that, but did not, so I did).
>>
>> Everyone reading this should at least be able to do this much for an
>> issue like this, and this much *is* helpful.
>>
>> * compared behavior and doc and concluded that there is a bug.
>>
>> * read the posted patch as best I could, which is not much in this case,
>> but it at least looked like a real diff file.
>>
>> * noticed that the diff did *not* patch the appropriate unit test file.
>>
>> * discussed two possible fixes and identified which the OP choose.
>>
>> * wrote an 'executive summary' both for the OP and future reviewers.
>>
>> Oh yes, I also adjusted the headers. Although new reviewers cannot do
>> that, you *can* suggest in the message what changes to make.
>>
>> Special offer to readers of this thread, especially new reviewers:
>> if you make such a suggestion, you may email me, subject: Tracker, with
>> one clickable link like the above, cut and pasted from the browser URL
>> box, per line of the message.
>>
>> Perhaps you are shy and uncomfortable saying much. Well so was I. I
>> started about 5 years ago with *safe* comments and have s l o w l y
>> expanded my comfort zone. The shock of discovering this week that there
>> are 500 orphans, some 2 years old, expanded it. After no response for a
>> year or two, even an imperfect response must be better than nothing.
>>
>> While there is occasional negativity on the tracker, I believe it
>> averages less per message than python-list, which itself is pretty decent.
>>
>> Terry Jan Reedy
>>
>>
> Ok, but I'm going for EAFP rather than LBYL.  I have written a will. :)
>
> Kindest regards.
>
> Mark Lawrence.
>
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20100620/0cb71e5d/attachment.html>


More information about the Python-list mailing list