On 2/28/12 5:50 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 02/28/2012 06:16 PM, William Stein wrote:
Incidentally, I think a ticket set to "needs review" that doesn't have
a specific *reviewer* chosen by the author of the ticket, should be
bumped back to "needs work". Perhaps the biggest reason we have 279
tickets (right now) that need review is that in most cases people
don't do anything to get a specific person to review their ticket. If
they couldn't set their ticket to "needs review" without choosing a
reviewer, we would be in better shape.
This will have the opposite effect of what is intended, I think. Right
now, "needs review" means that somebody needs to review it. If I have
some free time, I look for a ticket marked "needs review" and do it. If
there's somebody in the reviewer field already, I can still finish it
and add my name as a second reviewer. I think everyone is happy in that
case?
If we require a name in the reviewer field and designate that field as
"the person who should review the ticket," what will probably happen in
practice is that nobody will touch tickets with a non-empty reviewer
field, and many people will be marked as reviewers on tickets they're
never going to review.
I agree with Michael here. The open-source philosophy emphasizes a
"pull" model, where workers pull tasks from the queue as they have time.
If we started putting people's name on tickets to review, that's more
of a push model---'here, do this work for us'.
William's idea doesn't distinguish between tickets that are ready for
someone to look at compared to other tickets that aren't ready yet.
That's an important distinction to have, I think, especially for people
that will review a ticket or two when they have time.
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
