Author skrah
Recipients brian.curtin, casevh, ced, eric.smith, eric.snow, haypo, jjconti, mark.dickinson, rhettinger, skrah
Date 2011-11-30.17:17:36
SpamBayes Score 3.40719e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <20111130171736.GA25619@sleipnir.bytereef.org>
In-reply-to <1322658209.73.0.41865435677.issue7652@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
Mark Dickinson <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
> The only problem from my perspective is getting someone to find time to review such a massive patch.  I've been wondering whether we could get away with some kind of 'statistical' review:  do a large-scale review, and then instead of having someone go through every line of C code, pick a few representative sections at random and review those.  If those code portions make it through the review unscathed, declare the code good and merge it in.

The regex module is in a somewhat similar situation. If I'm interpreting this

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-August/113240.html

dialogue correctly, a complete audit down to the last line isn't
always necessary.
History
Date User Action Args
2011-11-30 17:17:45skrahsetrecipients: + skrah, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, haypo, casevh, eric.smith, jjconti, ced, brian.curtin, eric.snow
2011-11-30 17:17:36skrahlinkissue7652 messages
2011-11-30 17:17:36skrahcreate