#16403: Remove Graph.to_partition
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner: pdehaye
ncohen | Status: needs_review
Type: | Milestone: sage-6.3
defect | Resolution:
Priority: major | Merged in:
Component: graph | Reviewers:
theory | Work issues:
Keywords: | Commit:
Authors: | 9f08c6b859a0fb853f69dbaedc73811740ee3e91
Nathann Cohen | Stopgaps:
Report Upstream: N/A |
Branch: |
u/ncohen/16403 |
Dependencies: |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by pdehaye):
Replying to [comment:9 ncohen]:
> > Not done. Your first sentence still shows indecision on exactly what
to do and why to do it.
>
> Are we really discussing my writing style here ?
No, we are discussing what is the basis to tell a collaboration of five
people that what they are doing, they are doing wrong. I am hoping I can
leverage the outcome of this discussion into a similar discussion for the
LMFDB project (50 people) to do things differently that what they
currently are doing. Even if that does not work, you are likely to enter
similar discussions when you review my students' tickets for sage in a
semester. We are talking 20 or so projects, I hope. And then we can enter
the same discussion again a few months later when I teach that same class
scaled to Coursera level.
> Because if it is not we will remove it, like any old code we don't want
to carry anymore.
>
Who is we? You and me who rubberstamps? I want to be sure I am doing the
right thing.
> > The burden should be on you to first explain that this is harmful.
>
> I do not consider this harmful, I consider this useless. We also have
reasons to believe that it has been added without wondering whether it
would be useful, which gives me more reasons to think that it is useless.
>
How can you argue this is useless when people explicitly tell you this is
useful to them? This might have been added because a project found it
useful. A project that counts, let's say, 5 people.
> > Judging from the mailing list and what I know, I think this is useful.
>
> Can't do anything against pure faith. Do you only accept claims without
proofs from yourself or do you intend to be as explicit as you expect me
to be ? This code can be written in one line, there is no doubt on earth
that the only reason to implement this function was its decorator.
Besides, with a name like that nobody even knows it exists and what it
does.
How explicit do you want me to be? The claim is that people find this
useless. I think the opposite and base my opinion on the fact that people
on the mailing list say this is useful. Do you want me to search for
specific emails? Martin R., who is not part of findstat, found this useful
a few hours ago.
This code can be written in one line, and is only there for the decorator.
So what? How is that bad? Abstract base classes do exist, and serve a
purpose (although this was apparently very controversial when introduced).
> Besides, with a name like that nobody even knows it exists and what it
does.
The people in the findstat project knows that it exist and what it does,
your claim is false.
> > Be careful when publicly doubting someone's intellectual honesty.
There is a fine line there. You might want to take a breather.
>
> Man, we are discussing how bits should be arranged in a part of Sage's
code that 5 people on earth know to exist. Stop taking this seriously.
The fact is that you put my intellectual honesty in doubt,. I reiterate
that this is completely inappropriate. And a very foolish way to bring
lightheartedness in the discussion. I repeat that you should really take a
breather if you don't see the error in that behaviour.
I might not want to be lighthearted about this, and in fact I don't want
to. I just wrote an ERC grant proposal to bring the ideas of the LMFDB and
the findstat project to another level, and uncertainty on a sage
reviewer's behaviour is certainly not something desirable for this
proposal.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16403#comment:10>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
