Wow, thanks for the extensive list. I've gone through each one. Comments below. The ones without comments I agree with you about.
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Ondřej Čertík <[email protected]> wrote: >> If there is good work, maybe someone can "adopt" the pull request by >> rebasing and fixing test failures and code problems in a new pull >> request. If the work really isn't that great, we should probably just >> close it. We'll have to look on a case by case basis. What PRs are >> like this? > > PRs that somebody should adopt (some of these we might decide to close > anyway): > > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1180 > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/786 > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/785 > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/677 > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1220 > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/936 > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1062 This one (1062) might be OK to put in the close list as well. > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/797 > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1258 Assumedly Tom is around to fix this one up (1258). From what I remember, it was almost ready, and a great improvement. > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1125 > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1326 > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/531 > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/447 > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1222 This one (1222) seems to have undergone some serious issues, most likely through rebasing or some other unusual committing practices. I'm not sure if it can be salvaged without the original author. > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1009 This one (1009) was not abandoned. Rather, there were some disagreements about whether the changes were desirable or not. The only way this one is going to be merged is if we make some decisions on what should and should not be done regarding Piecewise syntax. There's discussion both on the pull request and the issues. > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1158 > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/343 Apparently this one (343) is just https://github.com/rlamy/sympy/commit/5b63c9746a0d494aa4eddbff57855b55ba622f59 (the rest were already merged in 336). Ronan said that he wanted to put off the discussion until the release. > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/525 > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/456 > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/444 > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1293 > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1408 > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1413 > > PRs that I propose to simply close (the original author can always reopen them > if new work is done): > > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1117 > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1106 I closed these two (1117 and 1106) because they are no longer relevant. > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1354 Yes, this one (1354) definitely should go in the other list. > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/957 See my comment on this one (957). > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1154 OK to close this one (1154). Also OK to put it in the other list. If it's closed, an issue should be opened. > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1207 Ditto for this one (1207). > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/239 Not sure what the status of this is (239). I know there was talk of doing some of these things (sorting of eigenvectors and so on), but I don't know what has actually been done. Definitely I think that we should have these features if they aren't implemented yet. > > > As you can see, at least half of our pull requests are abandoned. So I > think that we should close the easy ones that either contain no useful > work, or largely unfinished work. Then on the interesting pull > requests, we need to decide on a case by case basis if we want this in > sympy. If so, then some of us should make a serious attempt to fix it. > If it cannot be done easily (without the original's author help), then > I suggest to simply write why it is hard to fix it on our own and > close it. Because then there is no need to have it open, if the > original author is not going to work on it, and nobody else knows how > to fix it. > > I propose to put "[UNFINISHED]" into the title of the pull request > before closing it, so that people can easily look these pulls up in > the closed pull requests view at github (in case somebody would like > to reuse some stuff from that later). Can you think of a good word to put in the title of the abandoned pull requests that we plan to leave open? It should tell people that it is OK to pick up the work of the PR, but also tell the original author that he is free to finish it up if he wants. If not, let's just put an explanatory comment at the bottom. Aaron Meurer > > There will be a few pull requests that we really really want to get > in, but nobody so far knows how to. Then we'll simply keep them open, > so that people can see them and help out. > > Ondrej -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
