+1, yes, the unintended merge should be reverted.

Martin

On Thursday 18 April 2024 at 17:54:26 UTC+2 David Roe wrote:

> Hi all,
> Sage has had a review process for over 15 years, but a combination of 
> recent changes has led to the merging of a PR into sage-10.4.beta3 of a 
> change (#36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>) that I 
> believe should not (yet) have been merged.  In #37796 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796> I created a PR to revert 
> the change, which was opposed by the author of the original change.  After 
> some 
> voting 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796#issuecomment-2053675535> 
> using the disputed PR policy 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/IgBYUJl33SQ/m/kvmOlVb1AQAJ>, 
> Matthias has asked 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796#issuecomment-2061926393> for 
> a vote on sage-devel about this reversion, in accordance with the section 
> that "This process is intended as a lower-intensity method for resolving 
> disagreements, and full votes on sage-devel override the process described 
> below."  I am therefore asking you to vote (+1 means merge #37796 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796> in order to revert #36964 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>).
>
> First, here are the relevant parts of the history of this particular 
> change:
>
> - #36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964> was created on 
> December 25 by Matthias, positively reviewed 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964#pullrequestreview-1796972215> 
> by Kwankyu on Decemebr 27, disputed, received enough votes 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964#issuecomment-2041646521> to 
> get a positive review on April 7, and was merged 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964#issuecomment-2053520605> by 
> Volker on April 12.  It had dependencies: #37667, 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37667>#36951 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951>, and #36676 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676>.  While #37667 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37667> had positive review and was 
> already been merged, the other two were still disputed: they had received 
> an initial positive review but others objected and discussion was ongoing.
>
> - #37667 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37667> is not disputed.
>
> - #36951 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951> was created on 
> December 23 by Matthias, positively reviewed 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951#pullrequestreview-1799928234> 
> by Kwankyu on January 1, disputed, received enough votes 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951#issuecomment-2041636273> 
> (3-1) to change to positive review on April 7, had a clarification to bring 
> back to (3-2) and remove positive review, then was included in the merge of 
> #36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>. On April 13, John 
> Palmieri voted in favor 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951#issuecomment-2053686090>, so 
> the current vote stands at 4-2, enough for the 2-1 threshold in order to 
> get positive review under the disputed voting process.
>
> - #36676 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676> was created on 
> November 8 by Matthias, positively reviewed 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-1813306867> by 
> John Palmieri on November 15, and then disputed.  The most recent count was 
> 6-4 
> in favor 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2050362637> 
> (falling short of the 2-1 ratio needed under the disputed voting process); 
> since then I voted 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2050531437> in 
> favor, it was included in the merge of #36964 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>, and then Martin voted 
> against.
>
>
> At issue is the PR #36676 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676>, 
> where discussion was still ongoing when #36964 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964> was merged.  The reversion 
> of this PR proposed is purely for process reasons (I voted in favor of 
> #36676 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676> before all this 
> happened!).  The 5 Sage developers opposed to #36676 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676> deserve to have our 
> processes followed.  What went wrong?
>
> I think what happened resulted from a combination of the new disputed 
> voting process, mismatched expectations around dependencies after the move 
> to github, and Volker's release management scripts.  Several developers 
> privately expressed concern prior to this merge about exactly this outcome, 
> and I reassured them that dependencies would be taken into account.  
> Unfortunately, dependencies are now (unlike in trac) just a text section of 
> the PR comment, and the release scripts only see the label.
>
>
> There are lots of things to discuss around this chain of events.  I ask 
> that everyone keep this thread focused on whether to merge #37796 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796> in order to revert #36964 
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>.  Some other topics, and 
> places I suggest for discussing them:
> - Ways to improve or eliminate the disputed voting process: I suggest 
> Dima's recent thread 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/1eLrTCa7tVA>.
> - The merits of #36676 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676>: I 
> suggest discussing this either in the comments on that PR, or starting a 
> new sage-devel topic if you have broader changes to raise about sage 
> development.
> - Broader discussion of technical differences or philosophy: start a new 
> thread.
>
> I suggest a deadline of Sunday April 21 at 23:59 US/Pacific for this vote.
>
> Finally, many of these PRs have been plagued by conflict and inappropriate 
> language.  Please, keep comments friendly in this discussion.
> David
>

-- 
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/09adffac-3d24-46bf-94cc-24ced3c3c196n%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to