9 May 2012 12:51
PyPI pull request
anatoly techtonik <techtonik <at> gmail.com>
2012-05-09 10:51:53 GMT
2012-05-09 10:51:53 GMT
Hi, Anybody to merge my changes from https://bitbucket.org/techtonik/pypi-techtonik ? -- anatoly t.
12 May 2012 11:21
Re: PyPI pull request
anatoly techtonik <techtonik <at> gmail.com>
2012-05-12 09:21:05 GMT
2012-05-12 09:21:05 GMT
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik <at> gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Anybody to merge my changes from > https://bitbucket.org/techtonik/pypi-techtonik ? Richard told me he is busy preparing for the PyCon AU and administering ongoing PyGame, so no help here. Martin told it will take time. So, anybody else at least to review and comment? https://bitbucket.org/loewis/pypi/pull-request/1/fix-imports-add-logging-to-console-in I also sent mail to PSF requesting a new `pydotorg` account on Bitbucket, so that there will be a permanent home for official mirror for PyPI that can be found using Bitbucket search along with other open repositories for web to send pull requests to. In the meanwhile there few more clean up changes, one of which loosens dependency on M2Crypto, which is not installable in virtualenv if you don't have SWIG installed systemwide. Although it doesn't remove it completely yet. The goal is to make pycrypto an optional alternative for M2Crypto for an easy development.
12 May 2012 15:17
Re: PyPI pull request
Daniel Greenfeld <pydanny <at> gmail.com>
2012-05-12 13:17:41 GMT
2012-05-12 13:17:41 GMT
Anatoly, Here's a major issues with your pull request: It's not atomic enough. PyPI is a massive effort so any pull request should be as small as possible. For example, "running without sentry client" should be just a single pull request. By combining multiple "actions" into one pull requests, you've made it harder for the PyPI authors to evaluate your work. Which means they'll be less inclined to review it. Break this up into 3 separate pull requests. It's easy to do with branching, and the maintainers of the project will appreciate you for it. In fact, one thing we did with Open Comparison (http://djangopackages.com, http://pyramid.opencomparison.org, and soon http://python.opencomparison.org) that as helped us a lot as maintainers is write a formal contributing document that spells this out and more. See: http://opencomparison.readthedocs.org/en/latest/contributing.html and in your case, specifically: http://opencomparison.readthedocs.org/en/latest/contributing.html#how-to-get-your-pull-request-accepted I suggest to Richard and Martin they adopt something similar. Or they can use our contributing rules in the same manner as Read the Docs:(Continue reading)
12 May 2012 17:09
Re: PyPI pull request
anatoly techtonik <techtonik <at> gmail.com>
2012-05-12 15:09:44 GMT
2012-05-12 15:09:44 GMT
Hi Daniel, You're request and proposed action would be nice if it used Mercurial, but it uses Git + GitHub and have https://bitbucket.org/loewis/pypi/pull-request/1/fix-imports-add-logging-to-console-inabsolutely no idea how to apply it to Mercurial + Bitbucket. If I understand you correctly for every 7 commits in queue I need to make a separate clone and commit it separately. That's far from the that beautiful promise DVCS made. =) All commits are available in pull request separately. If you take another look at https://bitbucket.org/loewis/pypi/pull-request/1/fix-imports-add-logging-to-console-in you'll see there is an ongoing discussion over a questionable commit with Martin. Feel free to comment on any revision. I can rework them one by one on request if they are taking too much time to review. Your wish is valid and well understood, but for specific big features. For a series of small clean up changes such as this one this places a more constrain on the person submitting changes. So unless there is a comment that code is too complicated, I'd prefer to save this extra time to polishing other aspects. There are also 4 more commits in my copy waiting for this review to complete, which I deliberately doesn't add to this request to On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Daniel Greenfeld <pydanny <at> gmail.com> wrote: > Anatoly, > > Here's a major issues with your pull request:(Continue reading)
12 May 2012 17:24
Re: PyPI pull request
Daniel Greenfeld <pydanny <at> gmail.com>
2012-05-12 15:24:12 GMT
2012-05-12 15:24:12 GMT
This is Martin and Richard's project. If they want to insist on separate pull requests per feature being worked on, rather than having to cherry pick and analyze each segment of code you submitted before accepting it, then that's how they should do it. Of course they haven't said anything yet, but I'm just saying it's up to them. Also, the pattern I described to you fits very well within the beautiful promise of DVCS. The cleaner branching and merging of DVCS makes this sort of approach wonderful for all parties involved. Rather than giant, monolithic pull requests with lots of tiny commits, they get very easy to integrate pull requests. Smaller, atomic pieces are much easier to handle then larger multi-task components. Isn't that the promise of OOP and functional programming?(Continue reading)Danny On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:09 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik <at> gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > You're request and proposed action would be nice if it used Mercurial, > but it uses Git + GitHub and have > https://bitbucket.org/loewis/pypi/pull-request/1/fix-imports-add-logging-to-console-inabsolutely > no idea how to apply it to Mercurial + Bitbucket. If I understand you > correctly for every 7 commits in queue I need to make a separate clone > and commit it separately. That's far from the that beautiful promise > DVCS made. =) > > All commits are available in pull request separately. If you take
13 May 2012 11:02
Re: PyPI pull request
anatoly techtonik <techtonik <at> gmail.com>
2012-05-13 09:02:20 GMT
2012-05-13 09:02:20 GMT
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Daniel Greenfeld <pydanny <at> gmail.com> wrote: > > Also, the pattern I described to you fits very well within the > beautiful promise of DVCS. The cleaner branching and merging of DVCS > makes this sort of approach wonderful for all parties involved. Rather > than giant, monolithic pull requests with lots of tiny commits, they > get very easy to integrate pull requests. With all respect to abstract theories I can't immediately see how it applies to Mercurial in this particular case. > Smaller, atomic pieces are much easier to handle then larger > multi-task components. Isn't that the promise of OOP and functional > programming?(Continue reading)
12 May 2012 17:28
12 May 2012 19:27
Re: PyPI pull request
Kai Diefenbach <kai.diefenbach <at> iqpp.de>
2012-05-12 17:27:02 GMT
2012-05-12 17:27:02 GMT
Hi, On 2012-05-12 15:28:11 +0000, martin <at> v.loewis.de said: >> All commits are available in pull request separately. > > This is not sufficient, is it? If I want to accept change 1 and change 3, > and reject change 2, how can I pull change 3 without also integrating change > 2? I see your point, but this is technically possible with transplant: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/TransplantExtension Regards Kai
12 May 2012 21:25
Re: PyPI pull request
<martin <at> v.loewis.de>
2012-05-12 19:25:13 GMT
2012-05-12 19:25:13 GMT
> I see your point, but this is technically possible with transplant: > > http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/TransplantExtension I see. The page points to using the graft command; I'll try it out. Thanks, Martin
28 May 2012 13:29
Re: PyPI pull request
anatoly techtonik <techtonik <at> gmail.com>
2012-05-28 11:29:27 GMT
2012-05-28 11:29:27 GMT
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik <at> gmail.com> wrote: > > Anybody to merge my changes from > https://bitbucket.org/techtonik/pypi-techtonik ? Anybody? -- anatoly t.
28 May 2012 21:02
Re: PyPI pull request
Alex Clark <aclark <at> aclark.net>
2012-05-28 19:02:57 GMT
2012-05-28 19:02:57 GMT
On 5/28/12 7:29 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM, anatoly techtonik<techtonik <at> gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Anybody to merge my changes from >> https://bitbucket.org/techtonik/pypi-techtonik ? > > Anybody? I believe the culture of open source is such that one needs to make contributions, then back away and let whatever else is going to happen happen (vs. continuing to alert folks of what they are already aware of, that you have a pull request waiting.) That said, there is of course the occasional need to remind folks of things, but I don't think this is one of those cases. TL;DR I think everyone on this list is now aware that you have a pull request waiting, so there is no need for a reminder at this time. (In fact I'd argue that too frequent reminders may have the opposite effect of the desired effect.) Alex > -- > anatoly t. -- -- Alex Clark ยท http://pythonpackages.com
28 May 2012 22:28
Re: PyPI pull request
<martin <at> v.loewis.de>
2012-05-28 20:28:11 GMT
2012-05-28 20:28:11 GMT
> TL;DR I think everyone on this list is now aware that you have a > pull request waiting, so there is no need for a reminder at this > time. (In fact I'd argue that too frequent reminders may have the > opposite effect of the desired effect.) I can certainly confirm that it has this very effect in this case. Regards, Martin
22 Jul 2012 14:39
Re: PyPI pull request
anatoly techtonik <techtonik <at> gmail.com>
2012-07-22 12:39:50 GMT
2012-07-22 12:39:50 GMT
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 2:29 PM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik <at> gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik <at> gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Anybody to merge my changes from >> https://bitbucket.org/techtonik/pypi-techtonik ? > > Anybody? That suxx, but I still can not get any reply from Martin after several reminders, so I'm rejecting my pull request. At least next time then somebody says that I only complain, I have the argument that it is damn HARD to push something through you guys. https://bitbucket.org/loewis/pypi/pull-request/1/fix-imports-add-logging-to-console-in -- anatoly t.
RSS Feed