On Dec 3, 3:39 am, "Alex Ghitza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Nicolas,
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
Hi,
> > Dear all,
>
> > <advertisement>
> > In case you are near Orsay next wednesday, you are welcome to join the
> > party:http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/habilitation/
> > </advertisement>
>
> Best of luck!
+1
>
> > - When the patch is ready: manual post to trac, and usual official
> > review and integration.
>
> > This last step is not working well right now: many patches just lie
> > there for too long before being posted to trac. In general, the
> > overhead in patch management is quite high for those patches which are
> > essentially trivial.
>
> > So, I am wondering whether it would be acceptable, for the trivial
> > patches and those which do not interact much with the rest of sage, to
> > have the review process occur solely within the sage-combinat
> > community. Namely, consider a patch written by nt:
>
> > this_trivial_change-nt.patch
>
> > - When nt deems it ready, (s)he renames it as:
>
> > this_trivial_change-final.patch
>
> > - When someone has reviewed it, (s)he renames it to:
>
> > this_trivial_change-reviewed.patch
>
> > - At this point, a script picks it up automatically and post it to
> > trac as [with review] using as comment the (short?) log of the
> > development of the patch + name of developers and reviewers.
>
> > - Usual integration
>
> > The more involved patches (like the one I am working on for
> > categories) would of course follow the usual path.
>
> > What do you think?
I am not a big fan of letting scripts post patches. As Alex mentioned
below it is a 30 second thing to open a ticket and to attach a patch.
> My initial reaction is: what is the problem? The (trivial or not) patch has
> already been reviewed, tested, etc. within sage-combinat. The hard work has
> already been done, so under the current system all that's needed is to put
> the patch up on trac with [needs review]. At this moment, whoever reviewed
> it within sage-combinat can just give it a [positive review] on trac. Since
> the actual reviewing work has already been done, this should take a grand
> total of 5 seconds. Why is this not happening?
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the current review process is
> perfect. I'm just not sure that changing the rules for "trivial" patches is
> the way to go.
I don't think the possibly too simplistic interpretation of Nicolas
proposal "if a trivial patch in combinat works we can just push it
into Sage" works. I.e. passing doctests is only a part of the review
process and while that hurdle should be trivial to take once I do test
the combiant patches per default (that feature is right behind me
planning to finish the quadratic forms patch which is two weeks
overdue) I think that there are still design decisions to consider. I
guess in combinat the situation will become better once Mike's winter
break begins, but in the end the combinat people should not rely on
Mike too much there since it is easy for somebody else to push things
over into trac.
> Best,
> Alex
Cheers,
Michael
> --
> Alex Ghitza -- Lecturer in Mathematics -- The University of Melbourne --
> Australia --http://www.ms.unimelb.edu.au/~aghitza/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
