New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
The reviewer's checklist #17534
Comments
New commits:
|
Commit: |
Branch: public/17534 |
comment:3
In line 79 of
shouldn't that be |
comment:4
You should mention somewhere that a reviewer should add his/her own real name on the Trac ticket. |
comment:5
aditional -> additional |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
comment:7
Done ! Nathann |
comment:8
I'm sorry, I missed to mention that Martin |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:
|
comment:10
It is not exactly like you were the one to make the mistake in the first place Anyway. Fixed. Nathann |
Reviewer: Jeroen Demeyer, Karl-Dieter Crisman, Martin Rubey |
comment:11
Several comments, though the aim of this ticket is good.
Finally, there are some slight infelicities in the English, but unfortunately I don't have time this morning to do a detailed review of that. Things like "This, because", "an insufficient" (just "insufficient is correct), and the like. But don't worry about it now. It will be really nice to have a specific place to point people, because this is asked quite often. |
comment:12
Hellooooooo Karl-Dieter, I am sorry that I do not understand the intention behind many of your remarks, so I cannot make most of those modifications you asked. More specifically
I removed this section because it explained, in the 'Sage trac and ticket' chapter, how to check Sage's code which I found out of scope. I do not understand which kind of mention you would like to have of reviews in this part of the code: could you add a commit for that ? I have to say that I would be glad to rename this "closing tickets" to "Request the cosure of a ticket" or something. Nobody closes tickets except a guy who will not be learning his job in the developer's manual
Here again, I do not understand what you mean. The "status" section comes right after the "ticket fields" one.
To me you describe first a ticket that should be in 'needs_work' then a ticket that should be in 'needs_info'. Is that okay with the comment I added ? It says that 'some tickets are "new" only because nobody thought of changing it something else'.
Done.
It is true, but I believe that saying that here can only result in pointless worrying. If they have done the review correctly the only thing that could make this happen is because some releases are made between their review and the closing, and we have no control over that as developpers.
I made this sentence 'anonymous'.
I feel that this should be explained, but not here. It would be better if there was a link to point to, some page in the 'trac' section explaining about what appears on a ticket, including the branch's color, and what exactly it means. In this document I am already having a hard time trying to say everything to anybody that might need it while never boring anyone
Totally right. Done.
Where would that be ?
Hmmmm.. We should probably add a section like that in the 'doctest' section. Actually, we should probably have a page explaining what is a 'good doctest', what it checks, how, the random seed and stuff. Then we could have a link pointing toward that ?
Well, I just pushed my commit so it is your turn, whenever you like. Off to breakfast, then to my talk Nathann |
comment:15
Unfortunately I won't have time for that for a number of days. All I mean is "Maybe the section 'closing tickets' could become 'reviewing and closing tickets' " and then just add a paragraph saying something like "Tickets can be closed when they have positive review or for other reasons. To learn how to review, please see ." Then the current text follows. I don't agree this is not in scope to at least mention this!
But nonetheless "status" is a field, so it should be (however briefly) mentioned!
That is not one of my primary goals in this particular document, which is different from the intro to the developer guide.
I just assume it exists! Maybe it doesn't.
I am talking not about how to write doctests, but how to test and review. In which case we should mention people trying wacky stuff or just lots of ordinary stuff, but I certainly am not suggesting that every such thing should be included as a reviewer patch doctest. As to the other comments, probably I would write it differently but this is also okay. But I won't be able to finish review until a bit from now, as I said. |
comment:16
Yo !
Well, I fixed your comments in a new commit, in the hope that you would give this ticket a positive review during your next 10-minutes break
Done.
Done.
Well, just in case some guy who read the intro would end up on this page, I would also like to make it enjoyable to some extent. I am trying to give everybody the possibility to follow links if they are interested, and to continue with the main document if they are not.
Hmmmmm... I would say that a clear page on the different types of doctests, what they check and how they do it would also be of some help to reviewers. Knowing what people usually test in doctests would tell them what they should pay attention to.
Oh. Well, I am glad to read that as I had understood it differently. Glad to know that I don't have to write all that right now in order for this patch to pass
Okay. Well, I will push the commit in a second, then it's your turn. Nathann |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:
|
comment:19
What time zone are you in right now? I wasn't expecting any response until I signed off...
Sure, not on this ticket, of course. Okay, I'll bite and push something. By the way, on a first run-through I get
but I think that only happens when there is already an existing thing, not necessarily when this would actually get done... what about when one upgrades, though? |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
comment:21
Okay, this is hopefully it, just confirm it builds and looks good and you're happy with it. If the deal with the duplicate citation needs fixing, you'll have to ask someone else - as it says, one doesn't have to review everything in order to be useful :-) |
comment:22
Yooooooo !
Still in India ! https://www.google.fr/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=time%20chennai
Yeah, I solve it with a "touch *" in the developer/ folder.
NOoooooo idea I hope that the doc is rebuilt from scratch ?... This will have happened before that patch. Nathann |
comment:23
Yooooooo !
Builds on my machine, and I have nothing against any of that. Thanks ! Nathann |
Changed branch from public/17534 to |
In the current version of the developer's manual, the section that explains what a reviewer should check is located in the "Sage trac and tickets" section, chapter "The Sage trac server".
http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/trac.html#reviewing-patches
What it explains (conventions, documentations, coverage) seems to belong to the 'Basics of Writing and Testing Sage Code' section, and this branch moves it there.
I also rephrased some parts of it, like in tickets #17509 and #17508, so that you can more easily spot what you want to find.
On the way, I also created a section entitled "the status of a ticket" as it seems that we had nothing to explain that.
Nathann
P.S.: The goal is also to have a page we could give to possible contributors, meant to show them the way to review a ticket. For this reason, links are provided toward other sections of the manual, like the git commands, the conventions, etc.
CC: @kcrisman @videlec @sagetrac-tmonteil
Component: documentation
Author: Nathann Cohen
Branch/Commit:
79bbb56
Reviewer: Jeroen Demeyer, Karl-Dieter Crisman, Martin Rubey
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17534
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: