On 9/7/10 5:55 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
[snip]
Do we have any guidelines on these sorts of issues? If not, I'd propose that any changes outside the original scope of the ticket that will take the author less than 30 minutes to address, would be quite reasonable. But if the changes are going to take more than 30 minutes, the reviewer should put them on another ticket.
I'd say this completely depends on the reviewer and author. It's perfectly within the author's prerogative to say the changes are outside the scope of the ticket (or to more clearly define the ticket to draw the lines), and suggest that the reviewer should create a new ticket for the issues mentioned. I've done it many times, both on the author side and the reviewer side.
This is a problem faced throughout software engineering, of course. I think of the many times in my CS degree where we talked about the necessity of drawing up specs (i.e., tickets) and sticking with them, and I think also of many times we'd meet with clients when I was a programmer where the issue of creeping featureism and expanding scope were addressed and curtailed. In those cases, we could charge more to keep this down. Of course, we don't do that in Sage, so we just have to (amicably, hopefully!) draw the line.
Jason -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
