On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:32:52AM -0800, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> This ticket, like every ticket on our trac server, will be merged when the
> reviewers will be happy with it. Period.
> Respect that. Don't attempt to short-cut the review process with polls.
Certainly. I am not trying to "vote out a reviewer". The discussion
was at a stalemate due to diverging opinions on two points (a
technical point; and a point about how to proceed). I am therefore
bringing it on sage-devel to get *more* opinions so that we can
finally get to a consensus.
This already lead to some progress since this has been the occasion
for laying out the positions and divergence points, and have a serene
discussion about it. And the discussion is serene because it's about
opinions on facts, not on people.
> > Let's not deviate even more from incremental development and the usual
> > "release early, release often".
> Is that a f*** joke ? Your ticket was created three years ago, and the
> branch is thousands of lines long. Sage-combinat is all about not
> releasing early and often. It's about keeping it all unreviewed for months
> while you work on it, before creating a patch-bomb ticket on Sage's trac
> server. If you had worked incrementally this would have been settled ages
> ago, not at the last minute.
I already broke it down and got merged a bunch of stuff that could go
in earlier. Just look at the dependency list: #11224, #8327, #10193,
#12895, #14516, #14722, #13589, #14471, #15069, #15094, #11688,
#13394, #15150, #15506, #15757, #15759 (not all are mine). The list
does not even show dependencies like #11935 or #715 by Simon, which
were developed outside of the Sage-Combinat queue, and took a *long*
time to fix because they were *hard*.
The axiom infrastructure by itself is not splitable, and could not
have gone in much earlier due to the dependencies. What makes the
ticket big is the refactoring of the library using the axiom
infrastructure. I believe it's helpful to review it at the same time
as the infrastructure anyway because it illustrates how it works at a
large scale. You don't have to agree with that, but it could not have
been released earlier anyway.
The only stuff that could potentially have been split off was about
functorial constructions (maybe 20% of the patch?), and this is what I
take the blame for.
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--
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/d/optout.
