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

[Ralf Gommers]

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 5:49 AM, David Goldsmith <d.l.goldsmith at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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?
>

It always makes sense. "OK to apply" should only be used by (a) someone who
is about to commit to svn or (b) someone who is 200% sure what this means.

A few weeks ago I was committing all scipy changes and found many "OK to
apply" ones that couldn't actually be committed, for various reasons. This
meant I had to go back and recheck everything, including ones I had checked
as OK myself before.


> 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.
>

It's not only about content, but also for example knowing for which
docstrings pydocweb can not generate correct patches at the moment.

Cheers,
Ralf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20100619/54146b32/attachment.html>