#17534: The reviewer's checklist
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner:
ncohen | Status: needs_review
Type: | Milestone: sage-6.5
enhancement | Resolution:
Priority: major | Merged in:
Component: | Reviewers: Jeroen Demeyer, Karl-Dieter
documentation | Crisman, Martin Rubey
Keywords: | Work issues:
Authors: | Commit:
Nathann Cohen | 375d087b7820996f237ff97d49b971e1e921194a
Report Upstream: N/A | Stopgaps:
Branch: |
public/17534 |
Dependencies: |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by kcrisman):
> I removed this section because it explained, in the 'Sage trac and
ticket' chapter, how to check Sage's code which I found out of scope. I do
not understand which kind of mention you would like to have of reviews in
this part of the code: could you add a commit for that ?
Unfortunately I won't have time for that for a number of days. All I mean
is "Maybe the section 'closing tickets' could become 'reviewing and
closing tickets' " and then just add a paragraph saying something like
"Tickets can be closed when they have positive review or for other
reasons. To learn how to review, please see <the following section>."
Then the current text follows. I don't agree this is not in scope to at
least ''mention'' this!
> Here again, I do not understand what you mean. The "status" section
comes right after the "ticket fields" one.
But nonetheless "status" ''is'' a field, so it should be (however briefly)
mentioned!
> while never boring anyone
That is not one of my primary goals in this particular document, which is
different from the intro to the developer guide.
> > and point to where in the developer manual to find out how to test
that.
> Where would that be ?
I just assume it exists! Maybe it doesn't.
> Hmmmm.. We should probably add a section like that in the 'doctest'
section. Actually, we should probably have a page explaining what is a
'good doctest', what it checks, how, the random seed and stuff. Then we
could have a link pointing toward that ?
I am talking not about how to ''write'' doctests, but how to ''test and
review''. In which case we should mention people trying wacky stuff or
just lots of ordinary stuff, but I certainly am not suggesting that every
such thing should be included as a reviewer patch doctest.
As to the other comments, probably I would write it differently but this
is also okay. But I won't be able to finish review until a bit from now,
as I said.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17534#comment:15>
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.
