On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 9:35 AM, David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > The fact there are functions in Sage untested is worrying, and I think > its fair to say most people would like to see 100% doctest coverage, > but IMHO, we need a plan for this to happen, and the plan inforced, > otherwise this will not happen soon. So I'm suggesting we collect > ideas for a plan. > > Two things that do NOT appear to work, at least in isolation are: > > A) Saying coverage should be x % in release Y, then hoping it is. > B) Saying coverage should be x % by the date DD/MM/YY, then hoping it is. > > Both of these have been tried, and niether are working. The graph here > > http://thales.math.uqam.ca/~labbes/blogue/2011/03/evolution-of-the-overall-doctest-coverage-of-sage/ > > seems to indicate that progress on this has slowed over the last year > or so, where progress was about 4.7% per year. (I'm not actually sure > I agree with his line of best fit, which would suggest to me the > situation has slowed even more.) > > > A few ideas that might work, are below. I would add, I'm not > suggesting they are all very good (in particular 1 and 4 are a bit > excessive), but I mention them anyway. > > 1) Having a release, where the only aim is to increase doctest > coverage. No patches are accepted, unless they increase coverage. > 2) Finding sections of code which are not tested, and depreciating > them, unless someone writes the doctests, in which case the > depreciation can be removed. > 3) Having a release, where anyone can submit a patch which gets > reviewed, but the release manager does not merge it unless the author > of the patch can provide another patch which increase doctest > coverage. > 4) Finding individuals that have written code that is not tested, and > not merging any more patches from them unless they first add tests to > the ALL code they have already written. > 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. > 6) Not accepting any patches, unless a equal number of lines of code > are submitted which add doctests. > 7) Paying individuals to just write tests. > > I believe if we want to achieve 100% coverage, we need to do more than > A and B above, as they are proved not to work. > > Can anyone suggest anything else, or have any comments. > > Dave > > -- > 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
Option 1) seems like a good idea to me. The others might also work, but would surely require a lot of extra work on the part the release manager or whoever ends up having to enforce / implement the restrictions. That extra work would be better funneled into increasing doctest coverage in my opinion. We might consider combining option 1 and plan A, as you put it, but set a realistic target %. -- Benjamin Jones -- 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
