On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Jakob Kroeker <kroe...@uni-math.gwdg.de> wrote: >> With which money? > > > Funding money. If that is not allowed formally, convince funders. > In fact, in particular cases active testing was already done by some Sage > developers, > which (I do not know this) probably were not explicitly paid for that task. > There is money for travel, why not for QA? QA is inherently natural for > software development. > For example, we could find out, how reliable some routines are (otherwise, > how to know?), > or how effective are the used development process policies: > > The error rate (crash or incorrect result) for primary decomposition in > recent Singular version > should be down to about 1 per 200.000 examples (I' stressing these routines > at the moment) > The error rate for algebraic geometry related computations in polynomial > rings over integers (e.g. groebner, intersect, syzygies...) > should be much worse. Go figure! Or look at the bug reports in the > bugtrackers (Singular,sage). > In fact, std() over integers in Singular is broken for years. > A serious question: did someone who uses them not notice? And if not, why?
Many people doing algebraic geometry research use Magma or Macaulay2. Sage/Singular has failed to take over in Algebraic Geometry, like Sage has in other areas, such as combinatorics and big parts of number theory. QC issues with Singular are a part of the reason. In comparison, in number theory we are able to build on high quality libraries like FLINT. > I suggest to think about offering bounties for new reported bugs > and spend 10 to 30 percent of funding money for QA related tasks - > there is a rule of thumb that for three developers one tester is needed. > To some noticeable extent QA happens during the ticket review process, but I > doubt > that reviewers stress the routines with random input and compare the results > of different implementations. Sometimes they don't and sometimes they definitely do. I often do, and it is usually results in problems being found. Stress testing and comparison of answers when refereeing patches is good practice, and is made very easy in sage due to how easy it is to call other systems. > > > Jakob > > > Am Mittwoch, 29. Oktober 2014 11:28:01 UTC+1 schrieb Jeroen Demeyer: >> >> On 2014-10-24 18:09, Jakob Kroeker wrote: >> > I suggest Sage to pay QA staff for actively hunting bugs. >> With which money? >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
