[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

+1 -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/m

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

+1 -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/m

[sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

Thanks for working on this, John! I like that they are aspirational goals, being nice to each other shouldn't be that hard. There are always going to be questions "what exactly is now allowed", but its impossible to enumerate everything. Is it OK to push to somebody else's branch, or change th

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

I think this doesn't work. E.g. the proposal talks about setting PRs to "needs work", but banned by the PR's author team members can't do this. That's why, as I said already, bans break the normal workflow, be it reviewing or voting. On 4 March 2024 22:08:29 GMT, kcrisman wrote: > > > >Dima, I

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

Dima, I think that if anyone is incapable of posting to a particular PR, they should send email to someone who can post and ask them to record the person's vote, resulting in a comment like "I am posting to record 1 negative vote from X, 2 positive votes from Y and Z". Yes, that would also

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

+1 -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/m

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

+1 On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 12:23:39 AM UTC-8 David Roe wrote: > With no further discussion on this thread > , I'm calling a > vote on a new process for resolving disagreements on a PR. > > *Proposal* > It is now allowed to vote on disput

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

Dima, I think that if anyone is incapable of posting to a particular PR, they should send email to someone who can post and ask them to record the person's vote, resulting in a comment like "I am posting to record 1 negative vote from X, 2 positive votes from Y and Z". On Monday, March 4, 2024

Re: [sage-devel] Looking for volunteers

We've received several nominations, but if you have been on the fence about suggesting someone I encourage you to write to us. The nomination period will close tomorrow night. David On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:52 AM David Roe wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:51 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: >

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

+1 On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 20:21, G. M.-S. wrote: > > > +1 > > Guillermo > > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 09:43, David Roe wrote: >> >> The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks: in PR >> #37428, in this thread and then in this thread. It is orthogonal to the >> ongoing vot

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

+1 On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 20:20, G. M.-S. wrote: > > > +1 > > Guillermo > > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 09:23, David Roe wrote: >> >> With no further discussion on this thread, I'm calling a vote on a new >> process for resolving disagreements on a PR. >> >> Proposal >> It is now allowed to vote on di

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

+1 Guillermo On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 09:43, David Roe wrote: > The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks: in > PR #37428 , in this thread > and then in this > thread <

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

+1 Guillermo On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 09:23, David Roe wrote: > With no further discussion on this thread > , I'm calling a > vote on a new process for resolving disagreements on a PR. > > *Proposal* > It is now allowed to vote on disputed PRs

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

+1 -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/m

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

+1 ... although I expect that further clarifications will be needed once we have tried to apply this process. On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 12:23:39 AM UTC-8 David Roe wrote: > With no further discussion on this thread > , I'm calling a > vo

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

+1 On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 12:43:47 AM UTC-8 David Roe wrote: > The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks: in > PR #37428 , in this thread > and then in this >

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

+1 On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:03 AM Edgar Costa wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024, 10:49 Giacomo Pope wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 1:57:48 PM UTC Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:43 AM David Roe wrote: >>> The following proposal has been

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

+1 On Mon, Mar 4, 2024, 10:49 Giacomo Pope wrote: > +1 > > On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 1:57:48 PM UTC Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:43 AM David Roe wrote: >> >>> The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks: >>> in PR #37428

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

+1 On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 1:57:48 PM UTC Dima Pasechnik wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:43 AM David Roe wrote: > >> The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks: in >> PR #37428 , in this thread >>

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

I think Martin raises important points and agree that 0-4 should be added to the code of conduct (more in spirit than in this particular formulation; for example, I like the proposed reformulations of David). Point 5 is important as well, but I would say it's enough to spell out the rules gover

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

+1 On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:43 AM David Roe wrote: > The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks: in > PR #37428 , in this thread > and then in this > thread

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

David, how about team members who are blocked on GitHub. For GitHub voting to work, this has to be sorted out first. Dima On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:23 AM David Roe wrote: > With no further discussion on this thread > , I'm calling a > vote on

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

+1 -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/m

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

+1 -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/m

[sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks: in PR #37428 , in this thread and then in this thread . It is orthogona

[sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

With no further discussion on this thread , I'm calling a vote on a new process for resolving disagreements on a PR. *Proposal* It is now allowed to vote on disputed PRs directly on Github rather than bringing them to sage-devel. Working thing