> This argument is unconvincing to me; it's too black and white. You > could also make the same argument about the majority of content in > every research paper ever written. Just because "people" do things > doesn't automatically imply that what they do is not even remotely > correct. And our extensive testing framework in Sage -- which at > least helps -- doesn't at all imply that the code in Sage is correct.
You may not like the argument, but appreciate at least the current status: it is far from being reliable in any way. That is is *because* it is maintained manually is my opinion of it, but does not change the current status. Though you cannot ignore it totally either: we don't all manage those authors blocks the same way, plus we have different opinions about it... I don't see it work anytime soon unless it becomes mandatory like the 'author' field in a trac ticket. And, again, the same way that we removed changelogs from SPKG.txt files, let's not have a changelog in every function. Nathann -- 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 post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
