On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Dr. David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > On 05/26/10 05:34 PM, leif wrote: >> >> On 26 Mai, 18:09, Robert Bradshaw<rober...@math.washington.edu> >> >>> I like the risk assessment field idea. >> >> Me too, perhaps give it a different name. > > What would you call it? There are at least three things to consider I can > think of. > > 1) What are the risks associated with a change? > > 2) The probability of the change causing a problem. > > 3) The impact such a problem would cause. > > There might be others. > > Even things that have a fairly high probability of causing a problem are > probably not worth worrying about too much if the impact would be minimal. > > Conversely, even something which has a low probability of causing a problem, > but would have major consequences, needs to be taken seriously. > > However, unless there was a *major* change in Sage release practices, it > would be a bit pointless doing any sort of risk analysis. I don't detect > much of an appetite for a major change in Sage release practices. In fact, I > detect quite the converse.
At a bare minimum, any major change should be designed by people who have actually done some Sage releases. -- William -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- 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
