On May 15, 11:02 pm, Robert Miller <r...@rlmiller.org> wrote: > Jeroen Demeyer <jdeme...@cage.ugent.be> wrote: > > On 2011-05-13 07:24, Tom Boothby wrote: > >> Bottom line: I think this was handled wrong. If a ticket's been > >> merged, unless it's found to have a genuine flaw, it should supersede > >> (IMO) tickets with positive reviews which have not been merged. > > In this case, the *author* of those tickets decided to change the > > already-merged #10804 as opposed to the not-yet-merged #10549. I think > > listening to the author (Robert Miller) was the right thing to do here. > > I disagree with your logic-- you can't justify A with B if B happened > after A... You backed #10804 out before I did anything. Since both > were rejected, I randomly chose one to rebase on the other. > > > Also, since sage-4.7.1.alpha0 has not been released, the "merged" is a > > "weak merged" which can still change.
I'm with Robert here. I was under the impression that a merged ticket stayed merged, unless it caused really serious problems; if merged ticket X conflicts with un-merged (but positively reviewed) ticket Y, surely it's a no-brainer that X stays in and Y goes back to "needs work"? It can be a horrendous slog getting a ticket merged into Sage, and depriving people of the opportunity to breathe a sigh of relief when the "merged in Sage 4.7.alpha2" message appears on the trac ticket seems rather cruel. David -- 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
