On Tuesday, February 28, 2012, Keshav Kini <keshav.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > Michael Orlitzky <mich...@orlitzky.com> writes: >> On 02/28/2012 06:16 PM, William Stein wrote: >>> Incidentally, I think a ticket set to "needs review" that doesn't have >>> a specific *reviewer* chosen by the author of the ticket, should be >>> bumped back to "needs work". Perhaps the biggest reason we have 279 >>> tickets (right now) that need review is that in most cases people >>> don't do anything to get a specific person to review their ticket. If >>> they couldn't set their ticket to "needs review" without choosing a >>> reviewer, we would be in better shape. >> >> This will have the opposite effect of what is intended, I think. Right >> now, "needs review" means that somebody needs to review it. If I have >> some free time, I look for a ticket marked "needs review" and do it. >> If there's somebody in the reviewer field already, I can still finish >> it and add my name as a second reviewer. I think everyone is happy in >> that case? >> >> If we require a name in the reviewer field and designate that field as >> "the person who should review the ticket," what will probably happen >> in practice is that nobody will touch tickets with a non-empty >> reviewer field, and many people will be marked as reviewers on tickets >> they're never going to review. > > +1.
-2 >> Ultimately, we have so many "needs review" tickets because reviewing >> is kinda boring. I don't know how to fix that, but there is one thing >> that would help *me* review more tickets: some way to indicate which >> tickets have up-to-date patches. My instinct is to ignore older >> tickets needing review because the patches are always so far >> out-of-date. Maybe we could time out the "needs review" status after, >> say, 2 months? Make the author switch it back from "needs work" if the >> patch still applies? >> >> That would greatly cut down on the number of patches needing review, >> and would make it easy to find the ones that aren't going to be a >> headache. > > It's not much consolation right now, but this will become easier once we > switch to git, as branches can be automatically checked for whether they > are still mergeable into trunk or not. Well, the same could be done with > patches I guess but it would require a lot more coding on someone's > part. > > -Keshav > > ---- > Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net ! > > -- > 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 > -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- 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
