On Saturday, October 5, 2013 2:03:57 PM UTC+1, David Joyner wrote: > > My vote would be to certainly allow it to be an experimental package. >
There isn't really too much need for additional work here, what I'm seeing in the current patch is mostly adequate. A bit more documentation of input/output might be necessary at times. I'm really against the "experimental spkg" model for code contributions. This is just a variant of the "I put the code on my web page and nobody is using it" model. The strength of open source is that it extensible, and your code can get into the default distribution if it is of sufficient quality. That may take some additional time, but in the end you'll end up with a solid foundation that you (and others) can base their future work on. Having said that, we currently do a really poor job at reviewing contributions IMHO. Part of this will be better after the git transition when you will be able to get code into your working directory without copy&pasting URLs from a web page (WTF!!). But besides the technical component, we also need to actually review things. And that means that * You can review code even if you are not the world's expert in the field * Not every change actually needs to be reviewed or reviewed to the same level of scrutiny, this depends on the author's experience and the change in question * Review isn't the place for feature requests * We should have some system to suggest reviewers based on which files are being changed -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
