VOTE: use "blocker" label only for PRs; use "critical" label for Issues

[Kwankyu Lee]

Hi,

Here I withdraw the early premature "giving up" on my recent proposal, since afterwards there were some positive comments. Hence I open a voting for

Proposal:

1. Do not use "blocker" label for Issues, as "blocker" means to delay the release.
2. Instead use "critical" label for a very serious and urgent Issue.
3. A PR fixing the "critical" Issue will likely get the "blocker" label.
4. Old Issues converted from trac with "critical" label will get the "major" label instead.

Voting will end when there is no new vote for a week.

This is a simple majority voting (following the standard on sage-devel proposal)!

A positive vote is for all parts of the Proposal. So if you do not like any of (1) -- (4), cast a negative vote (-1).

Happy voting!

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 6:45 AM Kwankyu Lee <ekwa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

Here I withdraw the early premature "giving up" on my recent proposal, since afterwards there were some positive comments. Hence I open a voting for

Proposal:

1. Do not use "blocker" label for Issues, as "blocker" means to delay the release.
2. Instead use "critical" label for a very serious and urgent Issue.

Still, how about one level up from "critical" for issues? (need not be called "blocker", might be something like "grave" ?

Dima

  

3. A PR fixing the "critical" Issue will likely get the "blocker" label.
4. Old Issues converted from trac with "critical" label will get the "major" label instead.

Voting will end when there is no new vote for a week.

This is a simple majority voting (following the standard on sage-devel proposal)!

A positive vote is for all parts of the Proposal. So if you do not like any of (1) -- (4), cast a negative vote (-1).

Happy voting!

--
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+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/0f9b1d58-a50e-437b-a914-f0a31731626cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Eric Gourgoulhon]

-1 from my side, for I think an issue can be a blocker. 

For instance:

https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/36914

This issue, which regards the use of the notebook, could not have been detected by the CI framework.  It is a serious regression and definitely a blocker IMHO: are we willing to release a version of SageMath that cannot be used without an internet connection?

Eric.

[William Stein]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:39 AM Eric Gourgoulhon <egourg...@gmail.com> wrote:

-1 from my side, for I think an issue can be a blocker. 

For instance:

https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/36914

This issue, which regards the use of the notebook, could not have been detected by the CI framework.  It is a serious regression and definitely a blocker IMHO: are we willing to release a version of SageMath that cannot be used without an internet connection?

Related to this, do you think 

https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/34233

should also be a blocker?  In Sage if you create a plot with a large y-axis range, the labels on the y axis are 

mathematically incorrect, which is confusing to our largest group of users (beginners).

-- William

 

Eric.

Le mercredi 28 février 2024 à 07:45:03 UTC+1, Kwankyu Lee a écrit :

Hi,

Here I withdraw the early premature "giving up" on my recent proposal, since afterwards there were some positive comments. Hence I open a voting for

Proposal:

1. Do not use "blocker" label for Issues, as "blocker" means to delay the release.
2. Instead use "critical" label for a very serious and urgent Issue.
3. A PR fixing the "critical" Issue will likely get the "blocker" label.
4. Old Issues converted from trac with "critical" label will get the "major" label instead.

Voting will end when there is no new vote for a week.

This is a simple majority voting (following the standard on sage-devel proposal)!

A positive vote is for all parts of the Proposal. So if you do not like any of (1) -- (4), cast a negative vote (-1).

Happy voting!

--

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+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/a2c85e9b-ac46-49d7-8385-f568fddfa236n%40googlegroups.com.

--

William (http://wstein.org)

[Emmanuel Charpentier]

Le mercredi 28 février 2024 à 17:39:25 UTC+1, Eric Gourgoulhon a écrit :

-1 from my side, for I think an issue can be a blocker. 

For instance:

https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/36914

This issue, which regards the use of the notebook, could not have been detected by the CI framework.  It is a serious regression and definitely a blocker IMHO: are we willing to release a version of SageMath that cannot be used without an internet connection?

Seconded. -1 from me. 

A PR fixing a blocker issue sould be an "unblocker". (Some low minds may think of this as what Molière would have calld "un clystère"...).

OK, I'll show myself out. Sorry...

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 4:46 PM William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:39 AM Eric Gourgoulhon <egourg...@gmail.com> wrote:

-1 from my side, for I think an issue can be a blocker. 

For instance:

https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/36914

This issue, which regards the use of the notebook, could not have been detected by the CI framework.  It is a serious regression and definitely a blocker IMHO: are we willing to release a version of SageMath that cannot be used without an internet connection?

Related to this, do you think 

https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/34233

should also be a blocker?  In Sage if you create a plot with a large y-axis range, the labels on the y axis are 

mathematically incorrect, which is confusing to our largest group of users (beginners).

Sure, it can be a blocker, very well (or not to overload this word, it could be "grave" or something).

 

<rant>

To plot it, correctly, with sympy, you need to install 3 PyPI packages into your Python3:

matplotlib, jupyterlab, sympy.

On the other hand, check all the 400 neatly arranged Sage's spkgs, CI passing with flying colours..

.</rant>

 

-- William

 

Eric.

Le mercredi 28 février 2024 à 07:45:03 UTC+1, Kwankyu Lee a écrit :

Hi,

Here I withdraw the early premature "giving up" on my recent proposal, since afterwards there were some positive comments. Hence I open a voting for

Proposal:

1. Do not use "blocker" label for Issues, as "blocker" means to delay the release.
2. Instead use "critical" label for a very serious and urgent Issue.
3. A PR fixing the "critical" Issue will likely get the "blocker" label.
4. Old Issues converted from trac with "critical" label will get the "major" label instead.

Voting will end when there is no new vote for a week.

This is a simple majority voting (following the standard on sage-devel proposal)!

A positive vote is for all parts of the Proposal. So if you do not like any of (1) -- (4), cast a negative vote (-1).

Happy voting!

--
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+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/a2c85e9b-ac46-49d7-8385-f568fddfa236n%40googlegroups.com.

--

William (http://wstein.org)

--
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+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CACLE5GB7pxdZQJO7CV8YvNw3gvrVzcpv-fYXZk0YejkcXdXoxQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Marc Culler]

I have a proposal: It should be forbidden to call for a vote on a proposal before there has been a discussion.

Without a chair, it would be impossible for this group to follow Robert's Rules of Order, even approximately.  But the basic process should still be the same. The rules are designed to allow a deliberative body to make progress. The steps are:

1. Somebody makes a proposal (motion).

2. Somebody else seconds the motion.  This prevents the group from wasting its time on a proposal supported by only one person.

3. The group discusses the proposal, perhaps amending it, usually with "friendly" amendments that the proposer agrees to.  The discussion makes it possible for the group to make an informed decision.

4. Then there is a vote.

- Marc

[Kwankyu Lee]

On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 8:35:24 AM UTC+9 Marc Culler wrote:

I have a proposal: It should be forbidden to call for a vote on a proposal before there has been a discussion.

Sorry if it was not clear to you, but the discussion before this vote is here:

https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/uWHaWK7b6H4 

[Marc Culler]

I see.  Thanks.

- Marc

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sage-devel/E0qfJTMETDk/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/8e59075f-e7fa-403b-bf71-eb12fc57663en%40googlegroups.com.

[Vincent Delecroix]

From my point of view, the discussion that happened in the linked
thread has few to do from (1)+(2)+(3) of Marc's proposal (that I
approve very much!). It contains a lot of controversy and you did
write "Anyway, as there are only objections here, I give up.". You
then launched this vote thread 2 days after while the discussion was
still going on in the first one. Notice that the discussion that
happened in the linked thread has very few to do with the vote
proposal that you made here. Your proposal was never introduced as a
proposal open to amendment but only as a vote.

To me this call to vote is premature and for this reason I vote negatively (-1).

Vincent

[kcrisman]

On Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 1:45:03 AM UTC-5 Kwankyu Lee wrote:

Hi,

Here I withdraw the early premature "giving up" on my recent proposal, since afterwards there were some positive comments. Hence I open a voting for

Proposal:

1. Do not use "blocker" label for Issues, as "blocker" means to delay the release.
2. Instead use "critical" label for a very serious and urgent Issue.

I appreciate the spirit of this request, but since Trac did not distinguish between issues and PRs and we used blocker regularly on Trac, it seems like a pretty big change, and sort of implies you can't block a release (in principle) even with some big problem if you can't contribute a fix immediately. -1 for now.

[Matthias Koeppe]

-1 

For the most part, because this proposed policy cannot be reflected in the GitHub user interface: 

The list of selectable labels in the drop down menu cannot depend on whether it's an Issue or a PR.

Matthias

[Kwankyu Lee]

Voting is closed. Thanks for those who gave attention and voted.

0 clear positive (+1) votes

4 clear negative (-1) votes  

Hence my proposal is rejected. 

Other remarks:

- Dima's proposal ("grave" instead of "critical")  is something to consider if this proposal was accepted. 

- Sorry to those who felt that there was not enough discussion before this voting opened.

Let's now move and focus on other more important votings that are going on! 

Kwankyu