Erik Bray wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:11 PM, leif <not.rea...@online.de> wrote: >> Jori Mäntysalo wrote: >>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016, Erik Bray wrote: >>> >>>> One thing that will help, which has already been discussed up-thread, >>>> is having Trac help take care of the little nitty-gritty checks on >>>> tickets. >>> >>> True. It feels extremely stupid to get a message "You forgot reviewer's >>> name.", as this is exactly what computers should do instead of humans. >> >> You cannot automatically add these names; all we could do is create some >> plug-in such that when a ticket is set to "positive review" (and perhaps >> also other states), the contents of the field gets checked. (Same for >> the author(s) when the ticket gets into "needs review".) >> >> If it's empty, we could offer a multiple-choice list of names of the >> participants of the ticket *mapped to their real names*, but our >> currently rather informal list of the latter [1] isn't complete. (A >> separate file / database would be good anyway, and trac already has >> something like that.) > > This is straightforward to add.
Well, go ahead... :P > I think it should be required when > moving a ticket to the "positive_review" status that a Reviewer be > specified. By default this can be a drop-down list of participants in > the ticket, taking their full names from Trac or, if not available, > their trac usernames (but in that case we should encourage people to > fill in their full names in Trac!) That said the person moving the > ticket to "positive_review" can also manually fill in that name in the > normal ticket box (e.g. if the code was reviewed by someone outside of > Trac). > > Similarly for moving the ticket to needs_review, by default it can > fill in the current user's name as the Author, but of course that > doesn't prevent setting it to something else. Yep, that's what I meant. (Although tickets which get closed as "duplicate/invalid/won't fix" traditionally have no author but only reviewer(s).) Just note that we in fact have two "databases", a public and a private one, namely the list on Sage's trac wiki page, and the records in trac's account database. In the long run, we could probably "merge" them by generating the former from the latter (and to achieve this, add some fields to the preferences of each account, such as "public name" and "institution", "location", web link, whatever). > Ultimately it's good to have a human being look all this over before > merging, but if the guidelines are well spelled out somewhere that > does not have to be the job of one solitary person. I think every release manager used his own scripts to perform consistency checks (and to create brief release notes); in the past, the authors and reviewers of each ticket were listed in the release announcements, so that everyone could check whether his (or someone else's) name got misspelled etc., at least before a stable release (with proper release notes) got out. -leif >> We may also change these fields to contain trac account names, but >> that's a matter of taste (and tradition), too. > > Yes, either way. > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
