On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Aaron S. Meurer <asmeu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.?
Most people did +1 on the idea. Since you gave +1 to the idea too, let's go with it. The patch itself wasn't properly reviewed yet. I run the tests on it myself so far. Can someone do that, and provide suggestions how to improve the patch, if needed? That'd be great. Ondrej -- 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.
