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

David Goldsmith d.l.goldsmith@gmail....
Sat Jun 19 16:43:14 CDT 2010


On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.root@ou.edu> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 1:49 PM, David Goldsmith <d.l.goldsmith@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Ralf Gommers <
>> ralf.gommers@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 5:49 AM, David Goldsmith <
>>> d.l.goldsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Pauli Virtanen <pav@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.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, in that case, please rescind my "OK to apply" permissions.  Thanks!
>>
>> DG
>>
>>
> In that case, I will just keep on doing what I have been doing.  Keep in
> mind, though, that I have come across some entries that have been marked for
> review that were almost a year old.  So, I don't know how much time the
> reviewers have to go over the many entries we will be completing over this
> summer.
>

Right now, "how much time the reviewers have to go over the many entries we
will be completing over this summer," is the least of our concerns: we don't
have many reviewers, we have no schedule for when reviews need to be
completed by, we don't have the technical infrastructure to support the
desired review process, and at the rate we're going, there won't be "many
entries we will be completing over this summer."

DG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20100619/5ecf5cd7/attachment.html 


More information about the SciPy-Dev mailing list