On Apr 30, 2011, at 10:52 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote: > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Aaron S. Meurer <asmeu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Apr 30, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> thanks Ronan, Vinzent, Aaron, Mateusz and Brian for participating in >>>> the discussion. First of all, I would like to assure you that there >>>> are no hard feelings on my side, and hopefully we can learn something >>>> form it, and resolve things. I would like to write my very clear >>>> opinion on some of the issues raised in this thread: >>>> >>>> 1) This feature is a core feature, that SymPy should have >>>> >>>> 2) It is ok to give -1 for reviews, as long as you give a plan for the >>>> author of the patch, how he can fix it, so that it is acceptable. It >>>> is also ok to give -1 without saying anything else (this case), but >>>> then this stops progress, because it is not clear what I can do to get >>>> this in. As such, when you do such "-1" as a reviewer, you should >>>> think twice what this is going to cause, and initiate a discussion >>>> about this. >>>> >>>> 3) Vinzent asked, why I was upset. So the reason being, that something >>>> that I personally strongly believe belongs into sympy was given -1 >>>> without any constructive technical criticism. As far as I know, we >>>> have never pushed in a patch, that was clearly given -1 as this one. >>>> So as such, I felt, that this means, this can't go in. And as such I >>>> was upset, because suddenly I will not be able to achieve the goal to >>>> be able to do things that people do with Mathematica with SymPy, not >>>> because the code was not there, but because some of sympy developers >>>> gave it -1, because they don't share my vision. And as such, I was >>>> upset. I think that's understandable, isn't it? :) In any case, let me >>>> reiterate, that I am upset at the situation, not Ronan, or anybody >>>> else. >>>> >>>> 4) So now the question is what to do now. Well, my first idea was to >>>> convince Ronan to give it +1. That's of course the best. But if that >>>> is not possible, we can of course push it in anyway (given all the +1 >>>> that it got from other developers). But that is really something, that >>>> I, as a democratic person, really hate to do. Because "-1" is like a >>>> veto. That's how it worked so far. Maybe this point needs further >>>> discussion among us. At least I always considered "-1" as a veto. And >>>> as such, the code can't be pushed in, unless the situation is >>>> resolved. >>>> >>>> Ondřej >>> >>> Well, to me, the definition of "democratic" means a majority :) >>> >>> As the community gets larger, I think it will be necessary to not always >>> have a unanimous decision on everything. Certainly we should aim for it, >>> and we shouldn't just ignore −1's (especially if it is a technical issue). >>> But if it comes down to a disagreement that isn't going to change, we will >>> have to just look to see if there is a majority opinion, or at least if >>> there is a consensus in a looser sense of the word (like 5 +1's vs. 1 −1). >>> >>> If you really want a unanimous decision every time, you will only end up >>> getting the highest quality code being pushed in, and you shouldn't >>> complain when anything less doesn't make it. But I think that that is a >>> bad way to do things, for the same reason that you should "release early >>> and release often" (see >>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s04.html). >> >> >> I think that the rule of thumb can be simply said -- do your best to >> "keep all sympy devs happy". If one of them gives -1, do the best to >> get it resolved (one way or another). > > > Unless somebody has something else to add, given the controversy of > the patch, Aaron, can you go ahead and push this in as it is, or > provide directions how I can improve the patch, so that it can go in? > > Thanks, > Ondřej >
Were we ever actually +1 on the patch itself, i.e., did anyone checkout the branch and run the tests, etc.? Aaron Meurer -- 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 sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
