[SciPy-dev] The future of SciPy and its development infrastructure

[Mike Hansen]

Hello,

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Charles R Harris
<charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the first thing to do is take a look at what sage is
> doing and see if we can't refurbish our current system to make it more
> useable.


On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <stefan at sun.ac.za> wrote:
> Proposed workflow:
>
> 1. Cook up a patch
> 2. Attach the patch (or a URL to the patchset/branch) to the issue
> tracker with a REVIEW tag
> 3. Ping the mailing list or IRC to request a review (rinse and repeat)
>
> Workflow for dev:
>
> 1. Request a list of patches ready for review: review
>  - Has tests [check]
>  - Has docs [check]
>  - Does what it is supposed to do [check]
> 2. Add a POSITIVE_REVIEW or NEGATIVE_REVIEW tag as appropriate
> 3. Request a list of patches ready to be merged (code can be merged if
> seen by two pairs of eyes: reviewer + committer, reviewer + reviewer,
> etc.  In the end it must have "positive_reviews - negative_reviews >=
> 2").  Review the patch (this adds one pair of eyes) and merge if
> appropriate.

This is roughly what we do for Sage, and it's fairly effective at
getting code merged in.  Also, _every_ piece of code that goes in does
so through via Trac ticket. It's easy to see when bugs have been
fixed.

--Mike