On 07/29/10 02:12 PM, kcrisman wrote:
<not aimed personally>
I will point out, though, that you clearly *do* use Maxima, since you
tried to do this in Sage, which uses Maxima heavily. One of the
things Sage has gotten a lot better about is acknowledging use of all
the many high-quality components, so let's all try to do a better job
reporting things upstream. I know it's annoying - I have personally
shoved off many matplotlib reports to Jason - but in the long run it
will benefit Sage a lot if more of us get known upstream.
</not aimed personally>
- kcrisman
As noted before, I'd like to see reporting bugs upstream as a necessary
requirement for getting a positive review on tickets. It seems to me only a
small percentage of bugs do get reported upstream. Making it mandatory, unless
there is a very good reason for not doing so, would be sensible to me.
In other words, authors of tickets should be able to show evidence where the bug
was reported, who to and on what date. Reviers should not give a positive review
until the ticket has a link to a bug report, or clear information about how it
was reported.
Obviously the above only applies to upstream bugs
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
