[SciPy-Dev] "ok to apply" permission request

[David Goldsmith]

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Pauli Virtanen <pav at iki.fi> wrote:

> Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:44:11 -0700, David Goldsmith wrote:
> [clip]
> > I don't understand: if they're going to commit the changes, why do they
> > need to be able to mark that they're going to commit the changes?  To
> > help them remember which ones they've screened as possessing nothing
> > "absurd" in case they can't commit the changes immediately after they've
> > decided to commit the changes?
>
> The point is that you typically commit a huge batch of docstring changes
> at once, and reading through a long patch listing makes your eyes glaze
> over really fast.
>

OK, I understand that, and it makes sense during the regular course of the
year when docstring changes aren't happening as frequently, but, something
to consider, perhaps through the course of the Summer Marathon, "OK to
apply"s should be merged once per week or some such?

So a rough sanity check is much easier to do in the web system, and the
> burden can be distributed across multiple people if necessary. Currently
> ok-to-apply is married with the Reviewer permissions.
>
> At least this is what I used and intended the feature for. I'm not sure
> if anyone else actually understands it the same way, especially as this
> is not written down anywhere :)
>
> > > Typically the way to just indicate that stuff is "done", is to mark is
> > > as "Needs review", at the moment.
> >
> > I guess then I'm really unclear as to the need for the "OK to apply"; my
> > understanding was that it was there for the editor to signal to the
> > commitor that, even thought the docstring is technically *not* ready for
> > review (e.g., it's still missing an Example, say, or a needed
> > Reference), it still represents a big enough improvement over what's in
> > SVN that, in the editor's opinion, it is "OK to apply".  If "Needs
> > review" is necessary and sufficient for something to be applied, then
> > why do we need the extra "OK to apply"?
>
> It was intended mostly as a reviewer/committer-level tool, at least
> originally, which is why it's not active with Editor permissions. Since
> anyone can in principle come and edit the wiki, I thought something like
> this would come useful.
>
> I haven't been following the edits lately, so I guess its your call as
> the present active guy to decide who gets which privileges :)
>

Not necessarily (certainly not in that I don't have the permissions to grant
such permissions; I don't even have permissions to commit changes): it
depends on the purpose of the attribute - if it's closer to what you say,
then I agree, it should be a reviewer/committor (though I didn't think those
were one and the same) who controls this; if, on the other hand, the purpose
is closer to what I say, then, at minimum, we need to think more about how
we do this.

DG

>
> --
> Pauli Virtanen
>
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>



-- 
Mathematician: noun, someone who disavows certainty when their uncertainty
set is non-empty, even if that set has measure zero.

Hope: noun, that delusive spirit which escaped Pandora's jar and, with her
lies, prevents mankind from committing a general suicide.  (As interpreted
by Robert Graves)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20100618/085c8b74/attachment.html>