On May 26, 2010, at 1:23 PM, kcrisman wrote:
On May 26, 3:56 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
<david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote:
On 05/26/10 05:34 PM, leif wrote:
On 26 Mai, 18:09, Robert Bradshaw<rober...@math.washington.edu>
I like the risk assessment field idea.
Me too, perhaps give it a different name.
What would you call it? There are at least three things to
consider I can
think of.
1) What are the risks associated with a change?
2) The probability of the change causing a problem.
3) The impact such a problem would cause.
There might be others.
Even things that have a fairly high probability of causing a
problem are
probably not worth worrying about too much if the impact would be
minimal.
Conversely, even something which has a low probability of causing
a problem,
but would have major consequences, needs to be taken seriously.
However, unless there was a *major* change in Sage release
practices, it
would be a bit pointless doing any sort of risk analysis. I don't
detect
much of an appetite for a major change in Sage release practices.
In fact, I
detect quite the converse.
At a bare minimum, any major change should be designed by people who
have actually done some Sage releases.
Wouldn't it be easiest for someone to change the 5.0 release date
thingie on Trac to "sometime in June, but may be pushed to July or
later in order to fulfill goals (Cygwin, etc.)"? This seems like even
more of a tempest in a teapot than the SPKG.txt thread ;)
I didn't know anyone even looked at those numbers--maybe it would be
better to put it in the *past* so people know not to trust it. I just
deleted the date for now, though hopefully June is still a realistic
target.
- Robert
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
