On 2017-03-16, Ralf Stephan wrote:
> The author of 1234 has IMO the responsibility to monitor 987 and do timely
> updates of 1234 when 987 changes, including canceling the positive flag on
> 1234.
+1
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" gr
On 03/15/2017 07:58 PM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On 2017-03-15, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> It's possible, but asking for trouble. If 1234 depends on 987, then it's
>> possible that the reviewer in 987 could say "I don't like any of this,
>> throw it out and start over," after which the
Hi Michael,
On 2017-03-15, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> It's possible, but asking for trouble. If 1234 depends on 987, then it's
> possible that the reviewer in 987 could say "I don't like any of this,
> throw it out and start over," after which the fix in 987 might not look
> anything like what you
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:38 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:12 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Craig Citro wrote:
>>>
> Maybe I'm just hung up on the word "assign", since it does most of
> what I would want, it just seems pushy.
>>>
On Thu, 28 May 2009 14:08:32 +1000
Alex Ghitza wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Marshall Hampton
> wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if there could be an online mechanism for suggesting
> > reviewers. Sometimes I look at a patch, and I think (for example)
> > "I'm not sure I can review this
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:12 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Craig Citro wrote:
>>
Maybe I'm just hung up on the word "assign", since it does most of
what I would want, it just seems pushy.
>>>
>>> I put the relevant usernames in the cc: box, presuming that
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Craig Citro wrote:
>
>>> Maybe I'm just hung up on the word "assign", since it does most of
>>> what I would want, it just seems pushy.
>>
>> I put the relevant usernames in the cc: box, presuming that they might
>> take the hint. Do they? I haven't collected da
>> Maybe I'm just hung up on the word "assign", since it does most of
>> what I would want, it just seems pushy.
>
> I put the relevant usernames in the cc: box, presuming that they might
> take the hint. Do they? I haven't collected data :)
>
Indeed, I think what Nick's describing is a really
On 27-May-09, at 8:43 PM, Marshall Hampton wrote:
> Maybe I'm just hung up on the word "assign", since it does most of
> what I would want, it just seems pushy.
I put the relevant usernames in the cc: box, presuming that they might
take the hint. Do they? I haven't collected data :)
Nick
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Marshall Hampton wrote:
>
> I wonder if there could be an online mechanism for suggesting
> reviewers. Sometimes I look at a patch, and I think (for example)
> "I'm not sure I can review this well, but I bet X or Y could...". I
> don't want to "assign" them the
I wonder if there could be an online mechanism for suggesting
reviewers. Sometimes I look at a patch, and I think (for example)
"I'm not sure I can review this well, but I bet X or Y could...". I
don't want to "assign" them the ticket, since that seems overbearing.
I know I would want to be info
On 5/27/09, Jason Grout wrote:
>
>
> I just noticed that there are *109* "needs review" tickets. Looking
> through the list at http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/report/10 , I see
> some extremely cool pieces of code in trac.
>
> Just a reminder...
Hey Jason,
Could you go through all 103 ticke
12 matches
Mail list logo
