On 2013-02-28, kcrisman wrote:
> --=_Part_444_3892362.1362074924783
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Good comments, Nathann, though some papers are read more than others :)
>
> Ahahaah. Yeah, but research publications (at least in my field) are read by
>> three reviewers and
> A single reviewer adds a lot of value, but the marginal benefit per
>> reviewer goes down quickly while the marginal cost goes up. That being
>> said, if you don't feel confortable giving something a positive
>> review, just leave some comments (perhaps even setting it to needs
>> work) and
Y !
> Good comments, Nathann, though some papers are read more than others :)
Yepyep, definitely. Some smart ones. And it's actually because they are
read many times by guys who actually want too understand that you believe
them rather easily. A bit like we can trust some Sage code be
Good comments, Nathann, though some papers are read more than others :)
Ahahaah. Yeah, but research publications (at least in my field) are read by
> three reviewers and buried forever, never to be read again. Sage's code is
> doctested, and used.
>
THREE reviewers? Most of mine have had ONE,
> A single reviewer adds a lot of value, but the marginal benefit per
> reviewer goes down quickly while the marginal cost goes up. That being
> said, if you don't feel confortable giving something a positive
> review, just leave some comments (perhaps even setting it to needs
> work) and mov
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:19 AM, luisfe wrote:
> On 28 feb, 17:26, Jernej Azarija wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> I have noticed (at least in the fields to which I made some small
>> contributions) that the number of reviewers is arbitrary. Sometimes there
>> is only one reviewer sometimes two, three..
>>
> Do not despair, my pet bug #10255 has the patch ready since two years
ago... ugh, that hurts. Anyone willing for reviewing it? :D
Aahaah. Come on, your patch seems realistically reviewable ! 12224 weighs
1.3 MB :-D
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>
>
> The point is that I would be totally amazed if #12224 were to (ever) be
> reviewed. Do you think that it could be reviewed twice ? :-P
>
>
Do not despair, my pet bug #10255 has the patch ready since two years
ago... ugh, that hurts. Anyone willing for reviewing it? :D
--
You received th
On 28 feb, 17:26, Jernej Azarija wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I have noticed (at least in the fields to which I made some small
> contributions) that the number of reviewers is arbitrary. Sometimes there
> is only one reviewer sometimes two, three..
>
> I cannot speak for others, but I wouldn't want to be
Helloo !!!
I have noticed (at least in the fields to which I made some small
> contributions) that the number of reviewers is arbitrary. Sometimes there
> is only one reviewer sometimes two, three..
>
> I cannot speak for others, but I wouldn't want to be the only reviewe
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:26:20 AM UTC-5, Jernej Azarija wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> I have noticed (at least in the fields to which I made some small
> contributions) that the number of reviewers is arbitrary. Sometimes there
> is only one reviewer sometimes two, three..
>
> I cannot speak f
11 matches
Mail list logo
