On 6/24/10 5:54 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
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?
This seems reasonable to me.
Thanks,
Jason
--
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
