#18812: latte_int: count integer points
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner:
ncohen | Status: needs_work
Type: | Milestone: sage-6.8
enhancement | Resolution:
Priority: major | Merged in:
Component: | Reviewers:
geometry | Work issues:
Keywords: | Commit:
Authors: | a7e407c5e35aae684a6c6157806848259ba2278c
Nathann Cohen | Stopgaps:
Report Upstream: N/A |
Branch: |
public/18812 |
Dependencies: |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
> I think your original proposal with write_ was better. I associate that
with writing a file.
Okay. Done.
> I believe that a reviewer also has the choice to make changes to the
proposed code, which is sometimes simpler than explaining which changes
should be made.
As a courtesy to the author, yes. He can fix typos directly, reformat
straightforward things, that's way easier than explaining them and saves
everybody time.
The reviewer, however, is a counter-power to the author. He is meant to
check things that the author could forget or mess-up. But he cannot have
"full write access" to the branch either, for the reviewer simply cannot
have more power than the author on a ticket.
If I propose changes it is very often because I need to have them inside.
If a reviewer comes, makes whatever changes he likes and sets the branch
to `needs_review`, then it is like I am forced to accept those changes if
I want my code to make it in. In this specific case, it was particularly
clear that I wanted functions to export polytopes to a file [comment:12].
If you disregard that and implement the branch to your liking, then you
are basically taking the other feature as a hostage.
So no, the reviewer should not feel free to make non-trivial change to
somebody else's ticket. The way I work as a reviewer is to push non-
trivial changes to another branch and say to the author: "Here it is and
here is what it does, add it to your branch if you agree with them".
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18812#comment:27>
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.
