On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 02:29 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>>
>>
>> IF the patchbot actually applied the right patches to the right
>> development version, naturally, which I suppose is what you mean in
>> the next line?
>>
>
> I meant that it would suck if
On 03/02/2012 02:29 PM, kcrisman wrote:
IF the patchbot actually applied the right patches to the right
development version, naturally, which I suppose is what you mean in
the next line?
I meant that it would suck if the patchbot marked a ticket "needs work"
because e.g. it ran out of memory
On Mar 2, 10:01 am, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/02/12 03:07, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Michael Orlitzky
> > wrote:
> >> On 02/28/2012 07:33 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
>
> >>> It's not much consolation right now, but this will become easier on
On 03/02/12 03:07, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Michael Orlitzky
> wrote:
>> On 02/28/2012 07:33 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not much consolation right now, but this will become easier once we
>>> switch to git, as branches can be automatically checked for
Robert Bradshaw writes:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Michael Orlitzky
> wrote:
>> On 02/28/2012 07:33 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
>>> It's not much consolation right now, but this will become easier once we
>>> switch to git, as branches can be automatically checked for whether they
>>> are sti
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 2/28/12 11:19 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>>
>> "Needs reviewer", or
>> something - that's probably not the right wording, but you get the
>> point.
>
>
> Exactly what I was going to suggest, if we are indeed going to go in the
> direction of yet an
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:38 AM, P Purkayastha wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, March 1, 2012 5:25:32 PM UTC+8, John Cremona wrote:
>>
>> On 29 February 2012 22:23, David Roe wrote:
>> > You can use the custom query:
>> >
>> > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/query?status=needs_review&author=~cremona&o
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 02/28/2012 07:33 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
>>
>>
>> It's not much consolation right now, but this will become easier once we
>> switch to git, as branches can be automatically checked for whether they
>> are still mergeable into trunk or n
On Thursday, March 1, 2012 5:25:32 PM UTC+8, John Cremona wrote:
>
> On 29 February 2012 22:23, David Roe wrote:
> > You can use the custom query:
> >
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/query?status=needs_review&author=~cremona&order=priority&col=id&col=summary&col=status&col=type&col=priorit
On 29 February 2012 22:23, David Roe wrote:
> You can use the custom query:
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/query?status=needs_review&author=~cremona&order=priority&col=id&col=summary&col=status&col=type&col=priority&col=milestone&col=component
>
Thanks for that hint, but I find the results
On Feb 29, 5:23 pm, David Roe wrote:
> You can use the custom
> query:http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/query?status=needs_review&author=~...
Which reminds me that it is totally insane that
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/search
doesn't have a link to the custom query page on it.
--
To
You can use the custom query:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/query?status=needs_review&author=~cremona&order=priority&col=id&col=summary&col=status&col=type&col=priority&col=milestone&col=component
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 14:10, John Cremona wrote:
> OK, I am happy with using the CC field in
OK, I am happy with using the CC field in this way, though I would
still want to be able to CC someone without the implication that I was
suggesting them as a reviewer. If I really want to ask someone to
review my work, though, I would prefer to ask them directly (say by
email) as has happened to
> > ticket but don't want to review it, or remove yourself from the CC list.
>
> By the way, I don't think this removes one from Trac notification
> emails for that ticket, correct?
>
I don't know. I think it should if you've never commented on the ticket.
David
--
To post to this group, send an
On Feb 29, 4:06 pm, David Roe wrote:
> I think the problem William is trying to resolve is that there are lots of
> tickets marked as "need review" on trac, where nobody besides the author
> feels any responsibility for getting them reviewed. Perhaps the idea of
> using the CC field for this pu
I think the problem William is trying to resolve is that there are lots of
tickets marked as "need review" on trac, where nobody besides the author
feels any responsibility for getting them reviewed. Perhaps the idea of
using the CC field for this purpose is a good one: whenever you mark a
ticket
I agree with Rob. I think it is completely unacceptable to list a
person as a reviewer unless they have previously volunteered, or
responded to an explicit request (which they might decline). The
analogy with refereeing papers for publication is apt.
John
On 29 February 2012 17:16, Rob Beezer
I have always used the "cc" field as a way of saying: "Here's a ticket
you might be interested in and could possibly review." And I have
never been bothered if that did not result in a review from that
person.
And when I am cc'ed on a ticket I always welcome it as an *invitation*
to review, with
On 2/28/12 11:19 PM, kcrisman wrote:
"Needs reviewer", or
something - that's probably not the right wording, but you get the
point.
Exactly what I was going to suggest, if we are indeed going to go in the
direction of yet another layer and step before a patch gets reviewed.
There is a distinc
> Also, I think that what William is proposing is something a lot better
> suited to the "owner" field which we are currently wasting. Isn't that
> exactly what it's for?
> Another argument for using the owner field: the Author and Reviewer
> fields use real names, whereas the owner field uses tra
Jason Grout writes:
> On 2/28/12 5:50 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> If we require a name in the reviewer field and designate that field as
>> "the person who should review the ticket," what will probably happen in
>> practice is that nobody will touch tickets with a non-empty reviewer
>> field, a
> See above. If the selected reviewer takes no action on a ticket after
> n days, then the ticket is changed back to "needs work" (and a message
> is sent) -- it is then the responsibility of the author of the ticket
> to choose an active reviewer.
>
Huh. In sum, this sounds like the whole idea
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:31 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Where is the field name "reviewer(s)" configured? I am going to change it
> to not have parens as soon as I can find it.
I've figured this out via grep.
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2012, Jason Grout
> wrote:
>> On 2/28/12 5:16 PM, Wil
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:49 PM, kcrisman wrote:
> Some reasons for +1, in addition to Michael's (and I don't think that
> a git switch would help much with his reasons, unless everyone had
> access to the release manager's brain):
> * What about a first-time contributor to Sage of brand-new code
On Feb 28, 8:47 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2012, Keshav Kini wrote:
> > Michael Orlitzky writes:
> >> On 02/28/2012 06:16 PM, William Stein wrote:
> >>> Incidentally, I think a ticket set to "needs review" that doesn't have
> >>> a specific *reviewer* chosen by the aut
Where is the field name "reviewer(s)" configured? I am going to change it
to not have parens as soon as I can find it.
On Tuesday, February 28, 2012, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 2/28/12 5:16 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm trying to make a query that lists all tickets that "needs revie
On 2/28/12 5:16 PM, William Stein wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to make a query that lists all tickets that "needs review",
but do not have anybody in the Reviewer field. I can't do this,
because the field is not "Reviewer" but "Reviewer(s)", and I can't
figure out how to use the query language of trac
On 2/28/12 5:50 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 02/28/2012 06:16 PM, William Stein wrote:
Incidentally, I think a ticket set to "needs review" that doesn't have
a specific *reviewer* chosen by the author of the ticket, should be
bumped back to "needs work". Perhaps the biggest reason we have 279
On 02/28/2012 07:33 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
It's not much consolation right now, but this will become easier once we
switch to git, as branches can be automatically checked for whether they
are still mergeable into trunk or not. Well, the same could be done with
patches I guess but it would requi
On Tuesday, February 28, 2012, Keshav Kini wrote:
> Michael Orlitzky writes:
>> On 02/28/2012 06:16 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>> Incidentally, I think a ticket set to "needs review" that doesn't have
>>> a specific *reviewer* chosen by the author of the ticket, should be
>>> bumped back to "needs
Michael Orlitzky writes:
> On 02/28/2012 06:16 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> Incidentally, I think a ticket set to "needs review" that doesn't have
>> a specific *reviewer* chosen by the author of the ticket, should be
>> bumped back to "needs work". Perhaps the biggest reason we have 279
>> ticket
31 matches
Mail list logo
