2009/6/23 William Stein <wst...@gmail.com>: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 1:12 PM, John Cremona<john.crem...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Then we need conventions for followup patches on tickets (reviewer's >> patches and the like). And a convention for whether the reviewer's >> patch replaces the original (something all too easy to happen by >> mistake when using MQs, at least for me) or is to be applied after the >> original. > > Let's form a committee. :-) I'm worried about this being too > complicated to easily remember and teach people. That might turn off > new developers, who are the most important resource to the Sage > project.
Good point. > >> The latter makes it easier for the original patcher to see >> what the reviewer wants changing; the former makes it easier for >> others to apply the patch(es). > > Just for the record, I really don't like the former. The perhaps we should officially disapprove of it. As I said, it's usually down to a mistake (forgetting the "hg -qnew" step), at least in my case. John > > I reallly like when I can see each step in a code "conversation" > between reviewer and author as a sequence of patches. > >> In many cases the reviewer does not make any new patches, just >> suggests what might or should be changed (more like a referee's report >> on an academic paper). In other cases there is more of a dialogue >> between original patcher and reviewer, ending up with a collaborative >> effort. I think that can be quite productive. > > Yes, I greatly prefer that. > > William > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
