On Sunday, April 29, 2012, David Kirkby wrote: > On 29 April 2012 18:00, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, April 29, 2012, David Kirkby wrote: > > >> > >> Perhaps you would agree to the number 5 I suggested earlier. > >> > >> 5) Finding individuals that have written code that is not tested, and > >> not merging any more patches from them unless they first add tests to > >> a number (say 5) tests for all the code they have written which is > >> untested. > >> > > > > I am opposed to anything that restricts an author from including good > new up > > to snuff code in Sage based on any properties ir behaviour of said > author. > > Would you be opposed to insisting someone write one doctest for > previous code they have written, for every new patch they want merged?
I am opposed. Moreover all code that has gone into sage for the last about 4 years has already had 100% coverage (or a major error was made when refereeing); since there have been many (most?) new developers since then, this proposal would have little impact. > I originally said 5, but would you find 1 acceptable? > > Dave > > -- > To post to this group, send an email to > sage-devel@googlegroups.com<javascript:;> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to > sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <javascript:;> > 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
