Iwan writes: > Not every comment on a PR has to be coupled with a review outcome (approval, request for changes, etc) - comments can just be comments.
This is so true. I've been going through some of the older PRs, trying to find some low-hanging fruit but it's not always straightforward. All of the older PRs will need re-working by the contributor (or adopting by someone). A goodly number of PR discussions have been suspended pending development/milestones. Some of these suspended discussions can be progressed without actually writing any code. Take the 28 May 2020 PR 1087 “Fix Issue #948” <https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/pull/1087> as an example ... The discussion starts with > “We have provided the solution for issue #948 <https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/issues/948> . In this we have allowed objects to have special characters with forward slash to make it a valid one.” The discussion ends with tgbug’s prompt response: > “As the test results show, this approach will not work. The place in the code to start on this is probably in <rdflib/rdflib/namespace.py <https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/blob/037ea51e5f4863a7f98ff59972fcd34d39a7ed97/rdflib/namespace.py#L836>:split_uri> , but the issue related to curies vs qnames will also have to be addressed to really address #948 <https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/issues/948>.” Issue #948 (from 19 Dec 2019) is titled: “Prefixed names does not allow escaping (turtle 1.1) - It is not possible to use escaping when using namespace prefixes. Creation of URIRefs warns about the problem and the serializer fails to create turtle 1.1 output.” This #948 discussion ends with tgbug*s’* 10 March 2020 comment <https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/issues/948#issuecomment-597376865> > “This is not just a parsing issue. It almost certainly will require changes to how curie suffixes are serialized. It may have unexpected interactions with the uri splitting code and might depend on #649 <https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/pull/649> to get the expected roundtripping behavior, and some additional work to serialize escaped characters in local names correctly.” As it transpires, #649 is actually tgbugs’s 16 March 2020 PR <https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/pull/649> (“namespace.py fix compute_qname missing namespaces”) which nicholascar committed to master on 16 March 2020. So, the #948 issue discussion can be updated with this information and the #1087 PR can, in turn, be revisited to check if the proposed changes are still valid w.r.t RDFLib 6.0.2 and whether the PR does actually fix the #948 issue. Sadly, the actual work of updating and checking the #1087 PR has to be done locally. I already have a clone of RDFLib in my home org and Github won't allow me to make another, so I can't clone a PR contributor's repos, merge with RDFLIb master and then issue a PR on their branch to bring it up to date and so progress their PR. The best alternative that I've come up with so far is to clone their repos locally, merge with RDFLib master locally and then create a new branch to contain the now-updated PR. Cheers, Graham -- http://github.com/RDFLib --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rdflib-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rdflib-dev/33677beb-7963-4244-b25a-a08d0d693257n%40googlegroups.com.
