[SciPy-dev] The future of SciPy and its development infrastructure

[josef.pktd at gmail.com]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <stefan at sun.ac.za> wrote:
> 2009/2/23 Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>:
>> A) Do we agree in general to a more disciplined tests / review / accept cycle.
>> B) What specifically are the problems that y'all are having, and what
>> options are there for solving them.
>
> Current workflow:
>
> 1. Cook up a patch
> 2. Apply the patch or, if you are not a dev, upload to trac
>
> So, currently, unreviewed, untested code ends up in SciPy, or
> languishes on Trac for a long time.
>
> Proposed workflow:
>
> 1. Cook up a patch
> 2. Attach the patch (or a URL to the patchset/branch) to the issue
> tracker with a REVIEW tag
> 3. Ping the mailing list or IRC to request a review (rinse and repeat)
>
> Workflow for dev:
>
> 1. Request a list of patches ready for review: review
>  - Has tests [check]
>  - Has docs [check]
>  - Does what it is supposed to do [check]
> 2. Add a POSITIVE_REVIEW or NEGATIVE_REVIEW tag as appropriate
> 3. Request a list of patches ready to be merged (code can be merged if
> seen by two pairs of eyes: reviewer + committer, reviewer + reviewer,
> etc.  In the end it must have "positive_reviews - negative_reviews >=
> 2").  Review the patch (this adds one pair of eyes) and merge if
> appropriate.
>
> That's the rough idea.  Comments welcome.
>
> Cheers
> Stéfan

I agree it is a good idea, theoretically, but

Maybe I'm slightly pessimistic, but almost the only comment or review
for my bugfixes in scipy.stats that I got, were from Per Brodtkorb,
and my tickets and patches were sitting for half a year in trac.. If I
have to wait for a review, then ...

(and I'm still waiting for 2 fixes to numpy.random)

Josef