[sage-devel] Re: Policy for disputed PRs: discussion
I think there needs to be a clear indication that a voting period is active (and when it closes). Perhaps we can use a PR label "s: voting" or "s: needs votes"? If we do not want to invent a new label, we may add "s: needs review", "s: needs work", "s:needs info" altogether to get attention. Then the voting period starts when the three labels are added. I suggest to end the voting when a week has passed after the last vote was casted. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/0406ec19-d905-4cc6-87e1-bec56d5bc2cen%40googlegroups.com.
[sage-devel] Re: Policy for disputed PRs: discussion
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 1:24:42 AM UTC-8 Kwankyu Lee wrote: (2) How do we count approvers and disapprovers for a disputed PR: A reviewer becomes an approver (who is in favor of the PR) when he/she sets "Approve" in the github review system. A reviewer becomes a disapprover (who objects the PR) when he/she sets "Request changes" in the github review system. I think there needs to be a clear indication that a voting period is active (and when it closes). Perhaps we can use a PR label "s: voting" or "s: needs votes"? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/2d6d6612-41b7-4569-a8ea-3cd08e411b33n%40googlegroups.com.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Policy for disputed PRs: discussion
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 10:02 PM David Roe wrote: > > Let's try to focus on the policy proposal, rather than specific disagreements > on individual PRs. The whole thing about specific disagreements on individual PRs comes exactly from the wrong overall direction of the project. Which replaced, hopeless in the long run, "just vendor everything" motto with even worse and much more labour-intensive "let's keep track of everything Sage users could possibly need and use, on every system Sage could run". Let's stop this control freakery, then we won't run into disagreements born out of frustration, and there won't be any urgent need for this proposal in the 1st place. Dima > > Dima, I'm sorry that you're feeling frustrated with the whole process. It > may be helpful to have additional directions about the overall strategy for > Sage's build system, but that's better put off to another thread. > David > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:48 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 9:25 PM Kwankyu Lee wrote: >> > >> > Meanwhile, Matthias and Dima spent lots of mental energy to produce a >> > prime example showing why we need the policy: >> > >> > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36726 >> > >> > Please come down from sun-shining deck to the murky bottom of our ship to >> > see the danger that might drown all of us... >> >> well, I am trying to pull the ship into the sea of normal Python >> packages, while participating in the endless bloating up of the build >> system and the external packages (because everything must be built >> from source, as if we toil for one of super-paranoid 3-letter >> agencies) >> we are drowning in. >> >> Like, adding by hand hundreds of 1-line text files to basically >> duplicate what's known to pip. >> >> See e.g. https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36777 >> (WIP, where I'm supposed to add about 400 such files by copy/paste >> from https://repology.org/) >> - totally unneeded, we just should not be shipping Jupyter and >> IPython. They can be pip-installed just fine. >> >> We could have removed the bloat of "toolchain" years ago. No major >> Python package/system ships >> compilers, and vendored Python. No major Python system ships anything >> Jupyter (E.g. look at scipy, sympy). >> Meanwhile Mattias couldn't even part with Cygwin deadwood: >> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36782 >> >> I am hating this senseless process more and more. Other people who >> work on the build system aren't exactly happy with the direction this >> is all going to, >> either. >> >> Dima >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> > "sage-devel" group. >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/8b07f03b-b60a-4cce-9dd9-59925bdf15c1n%40googlegroups.com. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "sage-devel" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq35iKf1EkaLkccvNp7kd9e254QD5Y4%2B1BoFROJL2R1iiQ%40mail.gmail.com. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_kif5KcLFTdWVXMs8acbkg6iDxCQinF6SO_81Uavkt6uQ%40mail.gmail.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq1-9QPP5jpP4ERypewqd3XybNLz9PZUgP4KemMu1-q45Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Policy for disputed PRs: discussion
Let's try to focus on the policy proposal, rather than specific disagreements on individual PRs. Dima, I'm sorry that you're feeling frustrated with the whole process. It may be helpful to have additional directions about the overall strategy for Sage's build system, but that's better put off to another thread. David On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:48 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 9:25 PM Kwankyu Lee wrote: > > > > Meanwhile, Matthias and Dima spent lots of mental energy to produce a > prime example showing why we need the policy: > > > > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36726 > > > > Please come down from sun-shining deck to the murky bottom of our ship > to see the danger that might drown all of us... > > well, I am trying to pull the ship into the sea of normal Python > packages, while participating in the endless bloating up of the build > system and the external packages (because everything must be built > from source, as if we toil for one of super-paranoid 3-letter > agencies) > we are drowning in. > > Like, adding by hand hundreds of 1-line text files to basically > duplicate what's known to pip. > > See e.g. https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36777 > (WIP, where I'm supposed to add about 400 such files by copy/paste > from https://repology.org/) > - totally unneeded, we just should not be shipping Jupyter and > IPython. They can be pip-installed just fine. > > We could have removed the bloat of "toolchain" years ago. No major > Python package/system ships > compilers, and vendored Python. No major Python system ships anything > Jupyter (E.g. look at scipy, sympy). > Meanwhile Mattias couldn't even part with Cygwin deadwood: > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36782 > > I am hating this senseless process more and more. Other people who > work on the build system aren't exactly happy with the direction this > is all going to, > either. > > Dima > > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "sage-devel" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/8b07f03b-b60a-4cce-9dd9-59925bdf15c1n%40googlegroups.com > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq35iKf1EkaLkccvNp7kd9e254QD5Y4%2B1BoFROJL2R1iiQ%40mail.gmail.com > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_kif5KcLFTdWVXMs8acbkg6iDxCQinF6SO_81Uavkt6uQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Policy for disputed PRs: discussion
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 9:25 PM Kwankyu Lee wrote: > > Meanwhile, Matthias and Dima spent lots of mental energy to produce a prime > example showing why we need the policy: > > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36726 > > Please come down from sun-shining deck to the murky bottom of our ship to see > the danger that might drown all of us... well, I am trying to pull the ship into the sea of normal Python packages, while participating in the endless bloating up of the build system and the external packages (because everything must be built from source, as if we toil for one of super-paranoid 3-letter agencies) we are drowning in. Like, adding by hand hundreds of 1-line text files to basically duplicate what's known to pip. See e.g. https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36777 (WIP, where I'm supposed to add about 400 such files by copy/paste from https://repology.org/) - totally unneeded, we just should not be shipping Jupyter and IPython. They can be pip-installed just fine. We could have removed the bloat of "toolchain" years ago. No major Python package/system ships compilers, and vendored Python. No major Python system ships anything Jupyter (E.g. look at scipy, sympy). Meanwhile Mattias couldn't even part with Cygwin deadwood: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36782 I am hating this senseless process more and more. Other people who work on the build system aren't exactly happy with the direction this is all going to, either. Dima > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/8b07f03b-b60a-4cce-9dd9-59925bdf15c1n%40googlegroups.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq35iKf1EkaLkccvNp7kd9e254QD5Y4%2B1BoFROJL2R1iiQ%40mail.gmail.com.
[sage-devel] Re: Policy for disputed PRs: discussion
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 1:25:17 PM UTC-8 Kwankyu Lee wrote: Meanwhile, Matthias and Dima spent lots of mental energy to produce a prime example showing why we need the policy: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36726 I endorse this example as one that is safe to study, without the need for a trigger warning. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/bba7d185-5ef1-4f47-a97b-570dd64d2fccn%40googlegroups.com.
[sage-devel] Re: Policy for disputed PRs: discussion
Meanwhile, Matthias and Dima spent lots of mental energy to produce a prime example showing why we need the policy: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36726 Please come down from sun-shining deck to the murky bottom of our ship to see the danger that might drown all of us... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/8b07f03b-b60a-4cce-9dd9-59925bdf15c1n%40googlegroups.com.
[sage-devel] Re: Policy for disputed PRs: discussion
A tangential follow-up to Matthias: I think that our code of conduct should be part of the distributed documentation. Should it be in the Developer's Guide? In some other existing documentation? As a standalone document? Yes. I agree that it is very relevant. But to keep a single source of truth, we may just put a link to https://github.com/sagemath/sage/blob/develop/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md in the developer guide right at the front page: https://deploy-livedoc--sagemath-tobias.netlify.app/html/en/developer/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/b19990fc-4fcd-42ba-8099-ea3c9335491cn%40googlegroups.com.
[sage-devel] Re: Policy for disputed PRs: discussion
I agree that we need a policy, and I am happy with David's proposal. A tangential follow-up to Matthias: I think that our code of conduct should be part of the distributed documentation. Should it be in the Developer's Guide? In some other existing documentation? As a standalone document? -- John On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 1:24:42 AM UTC-8 Kwankyu Lee wrote: > I agree that we need a policy for disputed PRs. > > Such a policy should not operate in a way to condemn those raising > objections to the PR since we want to keep kind, productive, caring > atmosphere as Matthias put it. The policy should be clear and operate > semi-automatically. So I suggest the following detail: > > (1) When a PR becomes a disputed PR? A PR becomes a disputed PR when one > reviewer adds "positive review" label, another reviewer removes it, and the > author does not plan to work more on the PR according to the reviewer > objections. > > (2) How do we count approvers and disapprovers for a disputed PR: A > reviewer becomes an approver (who is in favor of the PR) when he/she sets > "Approve" in the github review system. A reviewer becomes a disapprover > (who objects the PR) when he/she sets "Request changes" in the github > review system. > > Kwankyu > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/e50b04dc-0e94-4440-9b0e-0c6e12bb470an%40googlegroups.com.
