On Mar 7, 10:19 pm, Tom Boothby <tomas.boot...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's not the trend I'd highlight in the code. Looks to me like > we're overdue for a surge in doctest coverage. Can we get up to 95% > in the next 3 releases? >
Unlikely, I'd say. Much of the remaining doctest holes are ones that require more specialized knowledge, or are modules that are woefully underdocumented but the authors are not as active any more. The reality is that there were some big pushes a year and a half or two years ago, but since then energy for that has stalled. Also, if you look at the coverage since about a year ago, the slope is much smaller - and perhaps the least-squares fit is better? That isn't to say that a big push couldn't happen again. But it would take a concerted effort and leadership by someone to help pair talent with missing doc, more than just outputs of grepping through sage - coverage to identify where the coverage is missing. Probably there are also some older sage notebook files (not located in sagenb) that could be dumped now to help that out? #8803 is similar in vein, and would be a nontrivial help. - 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
