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

+1 - DLD On 03:43 Mon 04 Mar 2024, 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 - DLD On 03:23 Mon 04 Mar 2024, 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 directly on

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Labels and Reviewing

Dear Sage developers, Dima is correct that there are several developers who have blocked each other. The Sage Code of Conduct Committee is aware of several cases and is working on resolving them. We believe both that the presence of these blocks is harming the Sage project, and that it can be

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Labels and Reviewing

On 8 March 2024 14:11:41 GMT, 'Martin R' via sage-devel wrote: >I don't know exactly what case of blocking you have in mind, on GitHub you can block a user - such a block prevents the blocked user from commenting and changing the status of your PRs and issues. Currently there are a few

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Labels and Reviewing

I don't know exactly what case of blocking you have in mind, but I'm going to be bold and state that blocking among fellow developers (this is not about private messages, right?) cannot really be a solution, in my opinion: * either there has been a substantial breach of conduct, in which case I

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Help and Advice | Arithmetic of Jacobians in the Split/Real Model is Broken

As a small update, the repository now contains code to - perform arithmetic for - the imaginary model (ramified, one point at infinity) for all cases - the real model (split, two points at infinity) for all cases - the real model (inert, zero points at infinity) for even genus Which

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Labels and Reviewing

On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 8:39 PM David Roe wrote: > Addressing a comment from Travis > on > the voting thread: > > "but might want to consider cases when its 2 vs 1 as requiring at least > one other person involved. (Sorry for