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

Benjamin Root ben.root@ou....
Sat Jun 19 15:10:01 CDT 2010

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

Ben Root
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20100619/e5ff8150/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the SciPy-Dev mailing list