On Nov 29, 6:18 pm, Minh Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi folks,
Hi Minh,
<SNIP>
> Now, let say Jane reviews patch p_1 of ticket x, and then gives p_1 a
> thumb-up, then Jane is a reviewer of x. Before x is closed by the
> release manager, another patch p_2 is attached to x such that p_2 makes
> p_1 obsolete. Alice now reviews p_2 and gives this new patch a positive
> review, hence qualifying Alice as a reviewer of x. Note that p_1 is now
> obsolete and that p_2 (not p_1) should be merged into the current
> development branch. When it comes to making the reviewer list, which one
> of following should we do?
>
> (1) list only Alice in the reviewer list
>
> (2) list both Jane and Alice in the reviewer list
Sorry, my last remark was an off by one: This is the answer to this
question:
It depends. Usually if the reviewer for p_1 had a valid point (like in
the case below) and the second patch by the same person is the result
of that point the person does get credit. Even if another person
writes the followup patch the situation is the same. But if p_1 was
rubbish and the first review too and p_2 was implemented by somebody
else with another reviewer than p_1 only the author and reviewer of
p_2 would get credit. But I do not recall such a situation, so this
must be a rare occurrence.
In general my rule of thumb is to be generous with credit. And the
order of the listing for multiple authors should reflect the order of
their contributions, but that can some times be hard to judge. If
anybody feels that a given ticket has been misattributed in
HISTORY.txt and/or the release notes please let me know and I will
correct the issue and/or raise the issue with the other parties
involved.
> If this sounds a bit abstract, have a look at ticket #4534, which is a
> concrete example similar to what I've described above:
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4534
That ticket has two independent patches, one each reviewed by two
different people even though RobertWB's comment never was formally a
review, just a comment. Only the second patch was merged in that
particular case and only Jaap got formal reviewer credit in that case.
To get back to release notes in general: Are you planning to write
that part of the release notes since I record that info (and other
info, too) while merging patches. The individual changes for alphas
and rcs are usually pasted after the release notes, so if you wanted
to verify what has been noted I would greatly prefer it to get an
email on list pointing out potential issues. Once we get closer to a
final release someone needs to proof read my draft and potentially add
a bunch of additional boilerplate to what I have written. Another
thing that would be nice if you could handle it is the Sage Release
tour in the wiki since that can easily be done while the release is
progressing and since it is in the wiki it is trivial to do with
multiple parties at the same time.
One last thing: Can you take a look and review the various draft2 text
files #4567? In case you do please post a diff with your changes - I
really want to send the official notices out, but have been waiting
for you.
Cheers,
Michael
> --
> Regards,
> Minh Van Nguyen
>
> Web:http://nguyenminh2.googlepages.com
> Blog:http://mvngu.wordpress.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
