A bit of an update here, we have adopted a code of conduct (https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/blob/master/docs/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) and we have defined some pull request guidelines (https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/blob/master/docs/developers.rst#pull-requests-guidelines and https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md) - it does not quite go into that much detail about how to review pull request, but it gives an idea of what the preconditions are for merging. I may expand on these things as I have time but any feedback or further suggestions are also welcome.
I'm thinking of making a GitHub group (i.e. team) called "rdflib-reviewers" and adding people in there who are open to being tagged on reviews and then tagging the group on reviews, if anyone is interested in being in the group please let me know, of course you don't have to review everything you get tagged on but at the moment I basically just tag the core maintainers and Graham Higgins, as Graham has been very helpful with Reviewing PRs. I'm also open to other options, but my aim is to create a surplus of reviewers for PRs, as currently we have somewhat of a reviewer deficit. On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 16:50:56 UTC+1 Graham Higgins wrote: > 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/bfbe8bdd-6735-46e4-9b64-f5f4fcf0a0e8n%40googlegroups.com.
