On 10 April 2024 21:50:43 CEST, Matthias Koeppe <matthiaskoe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Monday, April 8, 2024 at 5:19:02 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 7:19 PM Matthias Koeppe <matthia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You will find the comments in these PRs instructive -- also as
>illustration for a (long overdue) *discussion about governance and review
>standards* in the Sage project.
>
>
>*1. Please vote +1 on both https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36561
><https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36561> and
>https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37138
><https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37138>* ("Move metadata from
>setup.cfg to pyproject.toml").
>These are trivial "chore" PRs. They update metadata of our pip-installable
>packages "sage-conf" and "sagemath-standard" to the latest format.
>These straightforward and appropriately focused PRs have been held back by
>months by *bundling the review of the PRs with unrelated issues.* I call
>this "artificial friction"; see the discussion in the PRs. To help overcome
>this artificial friction, please vote.
>
>
>This is not true - the friction is not artificial. It is due to legitimate
>concerns of developers who are not interested in
>spending all of their time on ever growing "Sage the distribution", and/or
>who see little merit in Matthias' sagelib modulalisation
>project, which uses Python features (most of all, namespace packages)
>not universally supported by a number of important tools, such as Cython
>and pytest.
>
>Please vote -1 on these two PRs (there are more similar PRs around). This
>will force Matthias to reconsider his priorities [...]
>
>
>What Dima is describing here is exactly the inappropriate bundling that I
>have called out.
There seems to be nothing else, short of a project fork, to make Matthias
reconsider.
> It's a violation of our standards of review.
By calling out for a mass vote you have essentially asked for such a violation.
Otherwise the whole thing about designing PRs by massive voting is a massive
waste of developers' time, as normal reviewing can be a time-consuming process,
in particular if the PR concerns a not a very familiar topic.
>
>As majority voting on PRs is our current conflict resolution mechanism:
>All, please vote.
>
So what exactly are you asking for? For reviews, or for massive violation of
our reviewing standards?
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/062AA6C5-23E9-4CDC-A74D-D8FA8E1D606E%40gmail.com.
