On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2010-10-21 22:49, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> (so I can just look at the code and say "yes," or *easily* try
>> it out.)
>
> Sorry but what's preventing you from *easily* trying it out today? I
> personally have one separate Sage setup on
On 2010-10-21 06:33, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> Finally, we need more automation. Refereeing code shouldn't
> have to involve downloading and applying patches and running all
> tests--that should all be done automatically (with failing tickets
> bounced right away, or at least in a 24-48 hour window)
On 2010-10-21 22:49, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> (so I can just look at the code and say "yes," or *easily* try
> it out.)
Sorry but what's preventing you from *easily* trying it out today? I
personally have one separate Sage setup on sage.math.washington.edu
which I use solely for testing tickets.
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> In order not to overload the "bug wranglers" thread too much I'm
> starting a new thread.
>
> One thing which came up in that thread is the difficulty of finding
> reviewers. I also agree that this is an issue. For small bug fixes,
> the t
In order not to overload the "bug wranglers" thread too much I'm
starting a new thread.
One thing which came up in that thread is the difficulty of finding
reviewers. I also agree that this is an issue. For small bug fixes,
the time to find a reviewer totally dominates the patch development
time
