#19985: Add is_partial_cube
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
       Reporter:  jaanos             |        Owner:
           Type:  enhancement        |       Status:  needs_review
       Priority:  major              |    Milestone:  sage-7.1
      Component:  graph theory       |   Resolution:
       Keywords:  graphs partial     |    Merged in:
  cubes                              |    Reviewers:
        Authors:  Janoš Vidali       |  Work issues:
Report Upstream:  N/A                |       Commit:
         Branch:                     |  6b81097bc80245f66a6d94f8596846d0e5a6df98
  u/jaanos/add_is_partial_cube       |     Stopgaps:
   Dependencies:                     |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by ncohen):

 Yo,

 > I am unsure if I can not put this to positive review. Nathann, how
 rigorously should a reviewer read the code?

 There is no rule about that, as you can expect. The same way that paper
 reviewers sometimes do a serious job and sometimes only browse through the
 text. Both are called 'reviews'. Some tickets are also `positively
 reviewed` mostly because the reviewer and authors are good friends, and
 don't want to bother with details.

 Here the 'form' of the code seems good (doc formatting, new module,
 imports, index of functions), and from what I read of Janoš' code I'm the
 one who needs to double-check when I am about to make a comment.

 I would not give this ticket a positive review before I understand the
 algorithm and its implementation, however. And perhaps outline what it
 does in the module's doc while I am at it. If you give this patch a
 positive review, however, that's fine by me and there is nothing I
 can/will do against it. Everybody has his own way of reviewing things.

 We have very strict rules about where double columns should be put, and a
 ticket is easily set to `needs_work` because of that. But there is no way
 to check how honestly a reviewer inspects the mathematical code, so there
 we have to trust each other.

 Life.

 Nathann

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19985#comment:19>
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to