On 2013-02-28, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote: > ------=_Part_444_3892362.1362074924783 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Good comments, Nathann, though some papers are read more than others :) > > Ahahaah. Yeah, but research publications (at least in my field) are read by >> three reviewers and buried forever, never to be read again. Sage's code is >> doctested, and used. >> > > THREE reviewers? Most of mine have had ONE, some TWO.
Same here. And concerning "three reviewers for each patch on Sage trac": Don't forget that there are more or less trivial patches. * There are patches fixing a typo in some doc string---I think this hardly justifies having more than *zero* referees! * There are patches which have a rather local effect, because they change a method that is used in some specialised computations, but not in other modules of Sage. Here, one specialist in the concerned field of maths is enough for a review. * There are patches which improve existing functionality by better coding. Here, someone with a background in software engineering is enough for a review. * There are patches changing, say, the way how coercion maps are found or how parent and element classes are built. This has an influence in almost all components of Sage, and typically is quite complicated stuff. And here, it naturally occurs that a group of people gathers on the ticket, each one contributing a patch and reviewing the patches of the other people. So, I think there shouldn't be a rule for the number of reviewers, apart from it being a positive number. Cheers, Simon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
