On Apr 21, 2008, at 10:53 AM, William Stein wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:51 AM, mabshoff > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >>> Could you "rebase" the entire Sage repo so it has the new hashes, >>> then included >>> it for Sage-3.0 :-) If we're going to make a massive change like >>> that, 3.0 would >>> be the time to do it. Or does that request make no sense? >> >> We will likely have the same problem every time we merge heads if I >> understand the problem correctly. We also have about 40 patches >> outstanding [at any given time it seems - the number seems to >> oscillate around 40] and all of those would need to be rebased. >> Since >> the repo-as-text is a very specific case and in case it would >> have to >> be redone after each branch merge I see little benefit to do it. >> > > I'll let Robert answer, but he said "Yes, they changed the way they do > hashing,", > and I'm proposing somehow updating our repo so that throughout it uses > their new way of doing hashing. I'm not proposing something that > would > happen more than once. > > William
Yes, I could. This would mean that no pre-3.0 bundles would apply to post-3.0 (short of re-basing the bundles--and the big one (coercion) I could rebase myself). Patches should be just fine, and most things aren't big enough to warrant bundles. Does anyone know if mercurial 1.0 changed how hashing is done (yet again) or is it finally stable? If so I think this would be a good thing to do. - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
