On 2017-07-27, Travis Scrimshaw <tsc...@ucdavis.edu> wrote: > I am assuming by "this process" is the Sage peer review. It also does > usually improve the quality of the code and the documentation.
+1 > That is precisely what could be a problem. Doing things one-by-one means > you may not see how one dependency affects another. Also, what are the > rules? If B is based on A, do we require that A does not break anything in > B or is B responsible for any downstream changes in A? If it is the former, > then you have a useless extra layer because there is no point in have > separate modules. It is functionally acting as one complete unit. No. It just means that A has a stable and reliable API. > How much of that code is really a maintenance burden? Would any of those > bugs actually be fixed if you go to external packages? How many of them > would actually be found, much less reported (to the correct place)? If code > being included too quickly is a problem, then why are you suggesting a > method to include code even faster with less QC measures? +1 Cheers, Simon -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
