Here's a suggestion, which I think could be useful.
If a reviewer sees that a bug on trac is an upstream bug, that they are required
to see evidence that this has been reported upstream before the fix gets a
positive review.
Hence
AUTHOR
MUST state he has reported the bug upstream, and if so how. Sometimes that will
be an email, but the ticket needs to say who it was emailed to and what date.
Better still, if its a bug like in ATLAS, Python etc, where there is an online
database, post a link to that.
REVIEWER
MUST NOT GIVE POSITIVE REVIEW unless he/she is satisfied a bug has reported
upstream when appropriate.
This will have several advantages in the long run.
1) Everyone (not just Sage developers) will benefit if a bug gets fixed
upstream.
2) If the upstream developers say it is not a bug, then we should investigate in
Sage whether or not there was perhaps a mistake in the bug fix.
3) When new releases of the upstream packages are made, they should have less
bugs that Sage needs to work around.
4) If it becomes clear that we don't know who to report the bug to, that would
need fixing in SPKG.txt
Obviously many bugs in Sage have nothing to do with upstream packages, in which
case this would not apply. But where the bug is clearly an upstream one, IMHO we
make reporting it upstream a necessary condition before a positive review can be
given.
Does anyone have any comments?
Dave
--
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
