[Python-Dev] API refactoring tracker field for Python4

[Brian Curtin]

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:14, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Brian Curtin <brian.curtin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> There are many API changes and proposals that were forgotten and
> >> didn't get into Python 3, although they should be, because it was the
> >> only chance to change things with backwards compatibility break. For
> >> example http://bugs.python.org/issue1559549
> >
> > That can be added in 3.3.
> > To answer your comment on the issue: no investigation is needed. It
> didn't
> > make it in yet because there was no code written for it. It's really not
> a
> > big deal, it happens all the time.
>
> Don't you think that if more people were aware of this issue, the
> patch could be made faster?
>

Maybe, but someone still has to write the code. You could start a facebook
group for the issue and it could have 10,000 "likes", but it still doesn't
solve the problem. I'm reminded of the saying "9 women can't have a baby in
1 month"...

I do think it would be great if more people were involved in the issue
tracker. I don't know what it will take to get more people involved, but I
know it involves a lot more than modifying the tracker itself.


>
> >> This happened, because of poor bug management, where community doesn't
> >> play any role in determining which issues are desired.
> >
> > The community absolutely plays a role in determining which issues are
> > desired. They do this by action when they want something. A patch says a
> > whole lot about desire.
> >
> Don't you think that if people could review issues and "star" them
> then such minor issues could be scheduled for release not only by
> "severity" status as decided be release manager and several core
> developers, but also by community vote?
>

I'm not sure thatt's the right answer here. I'd rather people "star" or vote
on issues by completing a step of the process rather than just clicking a
thumbs up button. Writing a test case or checking that a patch applies on a
particular branch is a vote to me.


> Patch requires time, experience and approved contribution agreement,
> which you've sent using ground mail beforehand. Voting doesn't require
> any of this, but helps core developers see what user community wants.
>

I think the fact that it requires no "skin in the game" is a negative point.
I don't show up at government meetings and vote on things -- I don't have
that power. If I want something voted on, I go through a representative and
I tell them my story, my side of things, and show them what I want and why I
want it.

If we just let people vote on things, the first issue that would be created
would be "Remove the GIL" and it would have 10,000 votes and zero patches.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20110107/afc502b0/attachment.html>