Tue Jun 1 15:45:57 CDT 2010
2010/6/1 Stéfan van der Walt <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> 2010/6/1 Stéfan van der Walt <email@example.com>:
>>> 0) No one has disputed that we have (and have had for some amount of time,
>>> i.e., it didn't go into affect yesterday) a standing policy that new code
>>> submissions are supposed to have passing tests and a Standard-compliant
>>> docstring *before* being checked-in, and
>> We have had many discussions around unit testing and code review, but
>> the fact is that there is no such policy. Whether that should change
>> or not is another question.
> Looks like I read your message too hastily. I meant to comment on a
> policy surrounding addition of tests and code review.
> By the way, you'll notice that we have *guidelines*, not policy. I
> think that this is an important indicator of the way that SciPy
> development takes place (we agree by consensus and help each other
> out, rather than enforcing restrictions).
> If our guidelines may be modified to benefit one another so that we
> may all enjoy working on SciPy, that would be a good thing.
I don't know or remember whether the guidelines have ever been decided
upon, but my impression was that offering larger changes for review
has become the established, de facto rule.
Maybe it's time to spell out the conclusions explicitly, so we don't
have to repeat the same discussion every one to one and a half years.
That thread is too long to see whether there was any conclusion.
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
More information about the SciPy-Dev