--
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/71ce080f-ad3a-4d71-afad-521c31e732f3n%40googlegroups.com.
1. We have a low development velocity. For example, some simple PRs sit for weeks or months before receiving any review comments. What can we do to improve this?
Let's also use this anniversary as an opportunity to discuss what still needs improving in our development workflows. I'll start:1. We have a low development velocity. For example, some simple PRs sit for weeks or months before receiving any review comments. What can we do to improve this?
2. Is our community aware of the sagemath/sage GitHub wiki? https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki- Are the contents of the wiki front page useful?
Sage development nowadays does not seem to
be anymore about math research and efficient computations but mostly
about "dependencies", "infrastructure" and "maintenance". I am always
depressed by reading the change logs. It might have been a reasonable
thing if sage was a "stable core Computer Algebra System" on which
further specialized math research libraries would depend on.
But the
latter is not the official nor advised way of doing things.
What's rotten and decaying - well, the most obvious points are:
* pynac (memory leaks, bugs, sketchy or no docs, authors left long time ago)
* commutative algebra, in particular Singular-based (memory leaks,
bugs, no docs, authors either left or are not willing to look into it
much), etc.
* maxima (bugs, bugs, bugs)
* broken optional packages, e.g. p_group_cohomology
Each of those components could definitely use attention. However, the skill set required to work on those components is quite different from that on working on (re)packaging existing, maintained python projects. People choose what they work on. I think we have a problem if we don't have anyone willing/able to work on pynac or singular or maxima. But I'm not sure this has very much to do with people working on (re)packaging other software.
On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 10:16:58 AM UTC-8 Matthias Koeppe wrote:2. Is our community aware of the sagemath/sage GitHub wiki? https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki- Are the contents of the wiki front page useful?Meanwhile I have edited it a bit to offer "suggested activities".(This is based on a version of the Trac wiki front page just before the transition to GitHub.
On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 1:11:14 PM UTC-8 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
Let's also use this anniversary as an opportunity to discuss what still needs improving in our development workflows.
1. We have a low development velocity. For example, some simple PRs sit for weeks or months before receiving any review comments. What can we do to improve this?
2. Is our community aware of the sagemath/sage GitHub wiki? https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki- Are the contents of the wiki front page useful?- Are the links to Issue and Pull Request queries helpful?
> Is it time for the next step with syncing status labels (https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/35927)?The reason this is blocked is because there is a bug in the GitHub web interface that might cause confusion when labels are added or removed by the bot. More precisely, the panel with labels is not updated immediately after such an action. I have opened two bug reports (2448092, 2573072). Both were closed without a satisfactory answer, only informing that it is a known bug that will be fixed one day.
Matthias Koeppe schrieb am Freitag, 16. Februar 2024 um 19:00:52 UTC+1:On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 10:16:58 AM UTC-8 Matthias Koeppe wrote:On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 1:11:14 PM UTC-8 Matthias Koeppe wrote:Let's also use this anniversary as an opportunity to discuss what still needs improving in our development workflows.1. We have a low development velocity. For example, some simple PRs sit for weeks or months before receiving any review comments. What can we do to improve this?2. Is our community aware of the sagemath/sage GitHub wiki? https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki- Are the contents of the wiki front page useful?- Are the links to Issue and Pull Request queries helpful?3. Are the labels on GitHub Issues / PRs helpful?- Note that new contributors who are not in the Triage team cannot set/change labels!- This includes component labels, but also status labels such as "needs review".- Is it time for the next step with syncing status labels (https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/35927)?- Wishlist item: Component auto-labeler for GitHub PRs (https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/37373)- Wishlist item: PR size labeler (https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37262)
--
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/6745500d-2077-42b7-9406-d38c3e280407n%40googlegroups.com.
3. Are the labels on GitHub Issues / PRs helpful?- Note that new contributors who are not in the Triage team cannot set/change labels!- This includes component labels, but also status labels such as "needs review".
can be activated immediately: If a user converts a ready PR to a draft, all status labels will be removed. If a draft is marked as ready for review the s: needs review label is added. Also implemented (but not activated): If the s: needs review label is added a draft PR, it is marked as ready for review.
This is currently not implemented, but of course possible. But the converse can be activated immediately:
If a user converts a ready PR to a draft, all status labels will be removed.
If a draft is marked as ready for review the s: needs review label is added.
Also implemented (but not activated): If the s: needs review label is added a draft PR, it is marked as ready for review.
If a draft is marked as ready for review the s: needs review label is added.Activate immediately.
Can the status label sync workflow help with this transition, without getting in the way? For example, when the _author_ removes the "needs review" label (without setting "positive review"), set the PR to "draft"?
--
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/sulCa-6EZRA/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/268e5d1c-5ff4-4d88-8ea4-7aaef77973cfn%40googlegroups.com.