On 11/11/2014 3:41 AM, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd) wrote:
If I am honest, I am not that convinced it is a good follow up comment,
OK, I won't put your name on it ;)
but ignoring that, if this was to be the basis of an article, I can think of some improvements.
Thanks for the comments!
1) Add a time line. How long it took from the reporting of the bug, to the bug fixed, peer reviewed, then to release of a new alpha/beta/release candidate and finally to the release of a stable version with the bug fixed. I suspect it was faster than the year or so the bug has remained in Mathematica.
All I can see from trac is that everything happened 22 months ago. How do I find how long it took to go from positive review to stable release?
2) Take out the early reference to Sage getting the determinate correct that Mathematica gets right. Apart from boasting rights, I am not convinced it adds anything useful.
It gives us an excuse to show off the public worksheet. I could relegate this to a footnote, though.
3) The initial priority is stated to be major, but the priority can be changed by others, and most obviously by the release manager. So not every "blocker" bug gets fixed by the next release of Sage.
But the ones that aren't fixed are no longer blockers, right? UAW -- 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.
