On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. >
Well this is definitely the right *time* to do it. william --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
