William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:35 AM, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Come on, guys; is it really so hard to run "sage -docbuild reference
>>>> html" and check the output before you submit (or give a positive
>>>> review to) a patch?
>>>> \end{grumble}
>>> I've added this to the patch review guidelines:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.sagemath.org/TracGuidelines#ReviewingPatches
>> Though I'll point out, for the sake of argument, that some of us have
>> such underpowered computers that even running full doctests is not
>> practical (i.e. everything times out),
>
> There's interest in creating a function in Sage that will apply the
+1 (and more, if I'm allowed the vote).
What does "interest" mean? Someone has code? Someone expressed the idea?
Jason
> patches from a given trac ticket, run all tests, verify that the docs
> don't break, and report the result. The idea is that this will be
> done 100% automatically on the high-powered sage.math box. The script
> would also verify that every function touched by the patch has a
> doctest. Then essentially all of the guidelines:
>
> # 100% Doctests: All new code must be 100% doctested. There is no way
> around this.
> # Test the reference manual: sage -docbuild reference html must
> produce no errors
> # Test the Sage library: make test or make ptest (edit number of
> threads in makefile before using ptest!)
>
> would be verified completely automatically. Your task as a reviewer
> would only come after the script signs off that the above conditions
> are met.
>
> William
>
> >
>
--
Jason Grout
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
