On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:49:18AM +0200, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> > I wonder if the "lieutenant" model used by Linux kernel development
> > might be helpful here? If there was one or two people (lieutenants)
> > responsible for each broad area of Sage, and trusted to merge patches,
Somehow, that's precisely the point of the Sage-Combinat community for
combinatorics. By going through our patch server, our patches are in
effect continuously prereviewed:
- Integration with the other patches being developed on the same topic
- Usage and feedback by a variety of people
- Usage on different platforms
My impression so far is that this has worked quite well, and improved
the quality of the patches we submitted to trac (reducing the risks of
them actually causing trouble). On the other hand:
- There is some technical overhead (hopefully that will become easier
at some point, maybe by switching to pbranches rather than queues)
- With the category stuff, our patch queue got close to become non
manageable. But I don't foresee further developments at that scale
(both in sheer code size, life cycle, amount of reviewers, number
of tickets, depth and numbers of areas where Sage was changed, ...)
- We definitely should have an automatic testbot running every day
all Sage tests with our patches applied on a bunch of platforms.
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
