On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 05:35:15PM -0400, David Roe wrote:
> So, I can certainly do that by Wednesday.
Great.
> I think much of the difficulty will be getting the code up to 100%
> doctest coverage. It's not really feasible for Nicolas to write all
> those doctests.
Yeah. Part of the thing is: almost none of the code that was touched
was doctested before hand ... Do you have an idea of the rough number
of methods that need doctest? (Oops, I don't remember :-))
> I'm happy to contribute doctests for my section;
Thanks.
> do we need to get a secondary reviewer in that case?
I would be fine reviewing those back, if this sounds reasonable to the
others.
Best,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery <nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Tom, dear category reviewers,
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 02:30:23PM -0700, Nicolas Thi ry wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 12:00:19PM -0700, Tom Boothby wrote:
> > > I'm the release manager for sage-4.0.3.
> > > Python to 2.6, and if I succeed, I'll rename the release to sage-4.1.
> > > In about an hour, I'm going to send out review requests.
> >
> > Tom: thanks very much for your time on this!
> >
> > To all (potential) category code reviewers: I would really want to see
> > the category code end up in 4.1. FPSAC, the main algebraic
> > combinatorics conference, is less than one month from now, and the
> > sage-combinat dev have invested a lot of work this year to get Sage up
> > to speed at this point. We have 1/2 Mb worth of combinatorics patches
> > (root systems, crystals, symmetric functions, ...) waiting for the
> > category code to get in. For those, we will be able to manage the
> > review process among us, but we will need some time.
>
> Does the following looks sensible to all of you:
>
> - By, say, Wednesday, each category reviewer makes sure to glance
> through his patch, and report whether he sees any definitive show
> stopper: that is something that absolutely have to be fixed before
> integrating the code into Sage, and that is not easy to fix. He
> also report an estimate of the date by which he can complete the
> full review.
>
> - Accordingly, it's decided whether the category code is the official
> goal (with python 2.6) for Sage 4.1. And whether there should be an
> intermediate 4.0.3.
>
> - If yes (which I very much hope!), we all work hard to tidy up the
> easy things to fix.
>
> Cheers,
> Nicolas
> --
> Nicolas M. Thi ry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
> http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
>
>
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
