On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 1:12 PM, John Cremona<john.crem...@gmail.com> wrote: > Then we need conventions for followup patches on tickets (reviewer's > patches and the like). And a convention for whether the reviewer's > patch replaces the original (something all too easy to happen by > mistake when using MQs, at least for me) or is to be applied after the > original.
Let's form a committee. :-) I'm worried about this being too complicated to easily remember and teach people. That might turn off new developers, who are the most important resource to the Sage project. > The latter makes it easier for the original patcher to see > what the reviewer wants changing; the former makes it easier for > others to apply the patch(es). Just for the record, I really don't like the former. I reallly like when I can see each step in a code "conversation" between reviewer and author as a sequence of patches. > In many cases the reviewer does not make any new patches, just > suggests what might or should be changed (more like a referee's report > on an academic paper). In other cases there is more of a dialogue > between original patcher and reviewer, ending up with a collaborative > effort. I think that can be quite productive. Yes, I greatly prefer that. William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
