Dale Hirt <email@example.com> writes:
> Is there one or two people who are actually in charge of simply the SWIG
> portion? Or does just anyone having commit access work on it as needed?
That's basically how it works, yeah. Greg Stein was the SWIG person
for a long time, though others have worked on it too... but Greg has
less time to work on it now.
So yes, we could use some help there :-).
> What I'm eventually leading up to is wondering what it will take to have
> commit access on that particular piece of the pie. For now, I don't have
> huge bunches of time, but I'm willing and able to spare a couple hours a day
> to the SWIG python bindings since they're what are stopping me from
> full-blown usage of subversion. I'm not wholly conversant in Python, but I
> do know C and C++, and I'm learning more about Python and Python extensions
> everyday by reading all this wonderful source code, and I'd like to
> contribute more.
The way to get commit access is to post some patches; if they're
clean, conform to the HACKING guidelines, and solve more problems than
they create :-), then a committer will nominate you to the other
committers and they'll vote (privately, of course).
You might start out with just commit access to the SWIG area, if
that's what all your patches are against; but note that this is the
general process for getting commit access to the whole tree.
(I know you've already attached some patches to issue #990. You may
not be aware that the filenames are lost, and only the attachment ID
identifies the attachment, so you might want to put a new comment
listing exactly which attachments need to be applied. I haven't
reviewed that patch myself, as I'm fairly at sea in a Windows
environment, been hoping a Win32 developer would take a look at it,
hint hint... :-) )
Say, if you want to tackle the problem I just posted about in
Subject: inconsistency in Python SWIG return parameters
...that would be a huge help. The basic problem is that
conflict, new_rev = fs.commit_txn(txn)
returns the wrong number of results when the commit is successful,
because SWIG incorrectly omits the None value for conflict. There's a
more detailed explanation in the above-mentioned email.
That would be a patch I could (and would) review right away.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Thu Feb 27 23:21:31 2003