On Dec 1, 12:07 pm, "Ondrej Certik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Vinzent Steinberg
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Sage has problems with reviewing patches:
>
> >http://sagemath.blogspot.com/2008/11/sage-patch-review.html
>
> > I think our current patch review system could be improved too. So I
> > suggest to take part in the discussion.
>
> Indeed, thanks for pointing it out!
For the record: I had a long discussion with William in #sage-devel
and then off-channel and in the end William did concede that his POV
was "overly simplistic" for some of the statements he made in that
thread. There is no other discussion about the issue in [sage-devel]
and I don't really see one happening since this issue was extensively
discussed at Dev1. Maybe the Thanksgiving weekend gave people other
priorities, so it might still happen. But I am not going to do a
public rebuttal to William's blog post since I don't want to spend the
time on writing up the document. The off-list discussion is also too
interlaced with the personal details of Sage developers that I won't
post it with everyone's permission. The main conclusion from Dev1 was
that something needed to be done, but having a multi person panel take
care of it didn't work out too well. I think the idea in itself wasn't
bad, its downfall was just that no one pushed hard for it or really
wanted to take charge.
So in the end the situation can be summarized as "review is good, but
can be painful in certain situations". We all knew that when we
decided to introduce mandatory review and it has prevented a top of
crappy patches to be merged until they were fixed. The number of
patches in the Sage trac rise and fall exactly due to the effort
William made by pinging people personally and getting reviews done.
I.e. things build up until someone gets pissed and does something
about it. This has now happened twice (Dev1 saw a huge amount of
reviews due to the impeding merge of the new coercion system which
never happened in patch bomb form as anticipated prior to Dev1, the
other one was William now due to the upcoming ReST conversion of the
docstrings) and Sage Days 12 in San Diego in January will be 25+ Sage
Devs looked in a room for four days straight fixing bugs in trac so
that the number of open issues, especially the old ones, goes down
(consider on average two ticket per person per day resolved and we are
talking about 200 tickets resolved out of about 950 now :)) . It will
be great fun and the topic was suggested by me since I felt that too
many reported problem remain unfixed.
A factoid: We merged 2900+ tickets since mandatory patch review was
made the default about a year ago, many of them with large patches or
patch series. When William wrote his blog post there were about 70
unreviewed tickets in trac which was above average for sure. For 3.2.1
we merged about 120 tickets in under 10 days, so those 70 tickets do
not represent a whole of a lot of development effort and drown out in
the turnover. What is a problem is that some tickets just sit there
and bitrot and that is why we need someone dedicated to taking care of
those tickets. That is all the conclusion that should be drawn out of
William's blog post, so painting it as a problem in the way William
did is "overly simplistic" for me :).
> My own horse is gerrit, that Google uses, see this issue:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1197
>
> Andy tried to set it up, but it's a lot of work.
>
> Ondrej
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
