[Twisted-web] web2 log patch
ralf at brainbot.com
Fri Jan 20 14:42:44 MST 2006
glyph at divmod.com schrieb:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:36:21 +0100, Andrea Arcangeli
> <andrea at cpushare.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 10:31:20PM -0500, Jean-Paul Calderone wrote:
>>> Thanks for the patch. Could you attach it to an issue at
>>> <http://twistedmatrix.com/bugs/>? Also, patches with unit tests are
>>> to be applied more quickly than those without.
>> My test suite is the CPUShare server code, I tested it.
> James put this pretty well: if you fixed it this one time, how do we
> know that this won't just be reverted and broken again by some other
> patch? We have tests for a reason. We're not going to run CPUShare
> every time to make sure that it didn't break again.
>> I hope I can be applied right away without special requirements
> This is not a special requirement. All patches are required to come
> with unit tests - JP's response is repeated so often, it was probably
> just some text he keeps in his clipboard whenever he is reading
> email. You are asking for special consideration which, I might add,
> is more likely to be afforded to those who have a good track-record of
> writing tests and filing bugs. You've contributed patches, but always
> free-form on the mailing list with little explanation and no tests -
> in some cases, that's more work to figure out than fixing the bug myself.
>> Or at least I've not nearly the time to write testsuites
>> for such trivial fixes,
> Maybe if you did, my kernel wouldn't crash once a week... :)
>> nor to attach them somewhere with a web browser, sorry.
> Yet, you spent *all this time* in your email client. How is that
> easier? This message contained 5x as much text as would have been
> required in the bug report, probably more than would have been in the
> test and the report combined.
>> I hoped I could contribute despite significant constraints, I'm
> You are not special. We are *all* operating under significant time
> constraints for working on Twisted.
>> sorry if that's not the case. I think development of twisted is too
>> slow if it requires these formalities (especially given this is a web2
>> _unstable_ branch, I didn't touch anything else in my patch).
> At this point, and I realize this may not be intentional, you are
> actually contributing negatively. The "formalities" are in place to
> speed up the development process. Without tests, we'd be spending
> twice or three times as much time reviewing every patch, and preparing
> for a release would require acceptance testing from dozens or hundreds
> of people.
>> So I'm going to fork twisted into a private twisted-CPUShare branch for
>> my own server use where I won't have to waste time to fix bugs and, I'll
>> keep merging stuff from trunk as long as it makes sense.
> You remember that 'epsilon' thing you objected to? That is
> effectively Divmod doing exactly this. It's a great idea. Please do it!
This is only a great idea since patches tend to rot in the bugtracker.
I've added a patch for sending new style classes via pb at the end of 2003.
10 months later this has been assigned, in march 2005 db3l asks why this
patch hasn't been applied (he's using it successfully).
In April things start to fly: tests are being written, code is committed
(not my simple 3 line diff, something else).
However, my test program still doesn't work. In the end it's fixed
So, maybe you should check your "formalities" that speed up the
development process. I guess they aren't working that good.
It doesn't make sense for everyone to manage their own patched twisted,
fixing the same bugs...
More information about the Twisted-web