On May 26, 3:56 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
Wouldn't it be easiest for someone to change the 5.0 release date thingie on Trac to "sometime in June, but may be pushed to July or later in order to fulfill goals (Cygwin, etc.)"? This seems like even more of a tempest in a teapot than the SPKG.txt thread ;) - kcrisman -- 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
