On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:40:41 PM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote: > > > On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because they > > don't like the current implementation without providing a working > > alternative and can demonstrate why it's better. > > Do you think that a patch should automatically be merged when it has been > waiting for a reviewer for a long time ? >
That's not close to what I said. > > From time to time, I think that what a ticket implement is not a good > idea. I usually say so on the ticket and refuse to review it (i.e. #13624). > This is a bad practice. Some implementation is better than none, and doing things your way turns people off from reviewing the tickets. > > I still think that implementing the reviewer's remarks is the author's > job, though. Otherwise you will end up with careless reviews, because the > reviewers have no time to improve somebody else's code. And I wouldn't want > to see careless patches either, written assuming that the reviewer will fix > the problems. > I'm not disagreeing with you when there are errors and specific comments. Yet when the reviewer refuses to let something into Sage because (s)he thinks there is a better way without demonstration slows and sometimes halts progress. Otherwise we should stop improving computers because there's a better way to make them, so let's figure that out first before doing anything more. There are so many examples in history of things we should have done differently, but we only found out by doing the "wrong" thing first. BTW, that is one slipperly slope of logic jumps. Best, Travis -- 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.
