GeezerVison

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
>
>  "Guido van Rossum" <guido at python.org> wrote in message
>  news:ca471dc20805011541y63dd132eo6e67310eaeea3ffa at mail.gmail.com...
>
> | On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
>  | > As I understood this,one needs a diff to comment on.
>  | >  I can imagine wanting, or wanting others, to be able to comment on a
>  file
>  | >  or lines of files without making a fake diff (of the file versus
>  itself or
>  | >  a blank file). Then only one column would be needed.
>  |
>  | Yeah, this use case is not well supported. In my experience with the
>  | internal tool at Google, I don't think that anybody has ever requested
>  | that feature, so perhaps in practice it's not so common. I mean, who
>  | wants to review a 5000-line file once it's checked in? :-) The right
>  | point for such a review (certainly this is the case at Google) is when
>  | it goes in.
>
>  I am thinking of an entirely different scenario: a package of modules that
>  are maybe a few hundred lines each and that accompany a book and are meant
>  for human reading as much or more than for machine execution.
>
>  Or this: 15 minutes ago I was reading a PEP and discovered that a link did
>  not work.  So I find the non-clickable author email at the top and notify
>  the author with my email program.  But how much nicer to double click an
>  adjacent line and stick the comment in place (and let your system do the
>  emailing).  (I presume the sponsor of an item in your system can remove
>  no-longer-needed comments.)  So I guess I am thinking of your system as one
>  for collaborative online editing rather than just patch review.

I agree that those are all great use cases. Eventually we'll be able
to support these; right now though, I'd like to focus on the more
immediate need (IMO) of patch reviews.

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)