> *Just go with how github works, which is positive review = ready to merge and "files changed" shows the actual changes that this PR implements.*
The problem with this is: if there are commits on a branch that are reviewed in more than one PR, the question is: does *positive review* mean *all* or *some* PR's? I don't think *some* is a good choice. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to read through all these controversial PR's at the moment. However, what I have seen is that every dispute started with one participant feeling ignored by others. Maybe this is enforced by written communication. But, if we allow a procedure that systematically ignores the opinions of some reviewers, we may be adding fuel to the fire. Therefore I would have voted +1 if I hadn't missed the deadline. Like Travis, my vote is independent of the content of #36964. Volker Braun schrieb am Samstag, 20. April 2024 um 11:04:24 UTC+2: > It was merged because it was positively reviewed. > > Neither I nor the merge script reads every ticket description and looks > through the text whether any dependency is mentioned that has not yet been > reviewed. We can try to build such a Rube Goldberg machine, but I would > very much argue against it. Just go with how github works, which is > positive review = ready to merge and "files changed" shows the actual > changes that this PR implements. Anything else will just prevent us from > using standard tooling in the future. If anything introduce a "preliminary > positive review" tag that gets replaced with actual positive review when > the dependencies are in. > > On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 9:50:35 AM UTC+2 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > >> +1 for merging #37796. >> >> Volker, I would appreciate if you could say something about how #36964 >> was merged. It would be useful to understand the process with merging this, >> rather than guessing the intent. Additionally, I thought we didn't merge >> things when the dependencies have not been merged (or merged >> simultaneously)? (This is why I am voting for reverting.) >> >> Best, >> Travis >> >> On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 9:57:25 AM UTC+9 G. M.-S. wrote: >> >>> >>> -1 >>> >>> If something has been done that should be undone, I very much trust >>> Volker to take care of it when he can, without the need for endless >>> time-consuming discussions and votes. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Guillermo >>> >>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 17:54, David Roe <roed...@gmail.com> 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/1072762e-b89a-4c80-a1c2-a37387aae893n%40googlegroups.com.
