+1 for merging #37796. Volker, I would appreciate if you could say something about how #36964 was merged. It would be useful to understand the process with merging this, rather than guessing the intent. Additionally, I thought we didn't merge things when the dependencies have not been merged (or merged simultaneously)? (This is why I am voting for reverting.)
Best, Travis On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 9:57:25 AM UTC+9 G. M.-S. wrote: > > -1 > > If something has been done that should be undone, I very much trust Volker > to take care of it when he can, without the need for endless time-consuming > discussions and votes. > > Best, > > Guillermo > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 17:54, David Roe <roed...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> Sage has had a review process for over 15 years, but a combination of >> recent changes has led to the merging of a PR into sage-10.4.beta3 of a >> change (#36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>) that I >> believe should not (yet) have been merged. In #37796 >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796> I created a PR to revert >> the change, which was opposed by the author of the original change. After >> some >> voting >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796#issuecomment-2053675535> >> using the disputed PR policy >> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/IgBYUJl33SQ/m/kvmOlVb1AQAJ>, >> Matthias has asked >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796#issuecomment-2061926393> >> for a vote on sage-devel about this reversion, in accordance with the >> section that "This process is intended as a lower-intensity method for >> resolving disagreements, and full votes on sage-devel override the process >> described below." I am therefore asking you to vote (+1 means merge >> #37796 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796> in order to revert >> #36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>). >> >> First, here are the relevant parts of the history of this particular >> change: >> >> - #36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964> was created on >> December 25 by Matthias, positively reviewed >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964#pullrequestreview-1796972215> >> by Kwankyu on Decemebr 27, disputed, received enough votes >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964#issuecomment-2041646521> to >> get a positive review on April 7, and was merged >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964#issuecomment-2053520605> by >> Volker on April 12. It had dependencies: #37667, >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37667>#36951 >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951>, and #36676 >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676>. While #37667 >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37667> had positive review and >> was already been merged, the other two were still disputed: they had >> received an initial positive review but others objected and discussion was >> ongoing. >> >> - #37667 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37667> is not disputed. >> >> - #36951 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951> was created on >> December 23 by Matthias, positively reviewed >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951#pullrequestreview-1799928234> >> by Kwankyu on January 1, disputed, received enough votes >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951#issuecomment-2041636273> >> (3-1) to change to positive review on April 7, had a clarification to bring >> back to (3-2) and remove positive review, then was included in the merge of >> #36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>. On April 13, John >> Palmieri voted in favor >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951#issuecomment-2053686090>, >> so the current vote stands at 4-2, enough for the 2-1 threshold in order to >> get positive review under the disputed voting process. >> >> - #36676 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676> was created on >> November 8 by Matthias, positively reviewed >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-1813306867> by >> John Palmieri on November 15, and then disputed. The most recent count was >> 6-4 >> in favor >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2050362637> >> (falling short of the 2-1 ratio needed under the disputed voting process); >> since then I voted >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2050531437> in >> favor, it was included in the merge of #36964 >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>, and then Martin voted >> against. >> >> At issue is the PR #36676 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676>, >> where discussion was still ongoing when #36964 >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964> was merged. The reversion >> of this PR proposed is purely for process reasons (I voted in favor of >> #36676 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676> before all this >> happened!). The 5 Sage developers opposed to #36676 >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676> deserve to have our >> processes followed. What went wrong? >> >> I think what happened resulted from a combination of the new disputed >> voting process, mismatched expectations around dependencies after the move >> to github, and Volker's release management scripts. Several developers >> privately expressed concern prior to this merge about exactly this outcome, >> and I reassured them that dependencies would be taken into account. >> Unfortunately, dependencies are now (unlike in trac) just a text section of >> the PR comment, and the release scripts only see the label. >> >> There are lots of things to discuss around this chain of events. I ask >> that everyone keep this thread focused on whether to merge #37796 >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796> in order to revert #36964 >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>. Some other topics, and >> places I suggest for discussing them: >> - Ways to improve or eliminate the disputed voting process: I suggest >> Dima's recent thread >> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/1eLrTCa7tVA>. >> - The merits of #36676 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676>: I >> suggest discussing this either in the comments on that PR, or starting a >> new sage-devel topic if you have broader changes to raise about sage >> development. >> - Broader discussion of technical differences or philosophy: start a new >> thread. >> >> I suggest a deadline of Sunday April 21 at 23:59 US/Pacific for this vote. >> >> Finally, many of these PRs have been plagued by conflict and >> inappropriate language. Please, keep comments friendly in this discussion. >> David >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/67d98d5d-2121-44a9-9d99-a0f3cd7fbc67n%40googlegroups.com.
