David, none of this explains the misleading use of the word "unreviewed".
On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 10:47:36 AM UTC-7 David Roe wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 1:43 PM Matthias Koeppe <matthia...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I will first note that the title of this post is misleading. >> Everything that was merged has been reviewed -- as noted, many months ago. >> > > I agree that everything was reviewed. However review refers not only to > the action of giving approval (which was done), but also to the status of > the PR as indicated by Positive Review, Needs Review, and Needs Work > labels. This is the standard used by the release management scripts, as > well as our community understanding of what it means for a PR to be ready > for merging. Under this definition, #36951 and #36676 did not have > positive review at the time that #36964 was merged. > David > > On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 8:54:26 AM UTC-7 David Roe wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> Sage has had a review process for over 15 years, but a combination of >>> recent changes has led to the merging of a PR into sage-10.4.beta3 of a >>> change (#36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>) that I >>> believe should not (yet) have been merged. In #37796 >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796> I created a PR to revert >>> the change, which was opposed by the author of the original change. After >>> some >>> voting >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796#issuecomment-2053675535> >>> using the disputed PR policy >>> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/IgBYUJl33SQ/m/kvmOlVb1AQAJ>, >>> Matthias has asked >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796#issuecomment-2061926393> >>> for a vote on sage-devel about this reversion, in accordance with the >>> section that "This process is intended as a lower-intensity method for >>> resolving disagreements, and full votes on sage-devel override the process >>> described below." I am therefore asking you to vote (+1 means merge >>> #37796 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796> in order to revert >>> #36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>). >>> >>> First, here are the relevant parts of the history of this particular >>> change: >>> >>> - #36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964> was created on >>> December 25 by Matthias, positively reviewed >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964#pullrequestreview-1796972215> >>> by Kwankyu on Decemebr 27, disputed, received enough votes >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964#issuecomment-2041646521> >>> to get a positive review on April 7, and was merged >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964#issuecomment-2053520605> >>> by Volker on April 12. It had dependencies: #37667, >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37667>#36951 >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951>, and #36676 >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676>. While #37667 >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37667> had positive review and >>> was already been merged, the other two were still disputed: they had >>> received an initial positive review but others objected and discussion was >>> ongoing. >>> >>> - #37667 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37667> is not disputed. >>> >>> - #36951 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951> was created on >>> December 23 by Matthias, positively reviewed >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951#pullrequestreview-1799928234> >>> by Kwankyu on January 1, disputed, received enough votes >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951#issuecomment-2041636273> >>> (3-1) to change to positive review on April 7, had a clarification to bring >>> back to (3-2) and remove positive review, then was included in the merge of >>> #36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>. On April 13, John >>> Palmieri voted in favor >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951#issuecomment-2053686090>, >>> so the current vote stands at 4-2, enough for the 2-1 threshold in order to >>> get positive review under the disputed voting process. >>> >>> - #36676 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676> was created on >>> November 8 by Matthias, positively reviewed >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-1813306867> >>> by John Palmieri on November 15, and then disputed. The most recent count >>> was 6-4 in favor >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2050362637> >>> (falling short of the 2-1 ratio needed under the disputed voting process); >>> since then I voted >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2050531437> >>> in favor, it was included in the merge of #36964 >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>, and then Martin voted >>> against. >>> >>> >>> At issue is the PR #36676 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676>, >>> where discussion was still ongoing when #36964 >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964> was merged. The >>> reversion of this PR proposed is purely for process reasons (I voted in >>> favor of #36676 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676> before >>> all this happened!). The 5 Sage developers opposed to #36676 >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676> deserve to have our >>> processes followed. What went wrong? >>> >>> I think what happened resulted from a combination of the new disputed >>> voting process, mismatched expectations around dependencies after the move >>> to github, and Volker's release management scripts. Several developers >>> privately expressed concern prior to this merge about exactly this outcome, >>> and I reassured them that dependencies would be taken into account. >>> Unfortunately, dependencies are now (unlike in trac) just a text section of >>> the PR comment, and the release scripts only see the label. >>> >>> >>> There are lots of things to discuss around this chain of events. I ask >>> that everyone keep this thread focused on whether to merge #37796 >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796> in order to revert #36964 >>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>. Some other topics, and >>> places I suggest for discussing them: >>> - Ways to improve or eliminate the disputed voting process: I suggest >>> Dima's recent thread >>> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/1eLrTCa7tVA>. >>> - The merits of #36676 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676>: I >>> suggest discussing this either in the comments on that PR, or starting a >>> new sage-devel topic if you have broader changes to raise about sage >>> development. >>> - Broader discussion of technical differences or philosophy: start a new >>> thread. >>> >>> I suggest a deadline of Sunday April 21 at 23:59 US/Pacific for this >>> vote. >>> >>> Finally, many of these PRs have been plagued by conflict and >>> inappropriate language. Please, keep comments friendly in this discussion. >>> David >>> >> -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "sage-devel" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/8b29f6b0-d5c5-416a-8d93-362af4247a59n%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/8b29f6b0-d5c5-416a-8d93-362af4247a59n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/86d47685-91de-4173-9c2c-386b3599de1en%40googlegroups.com.
