On Apr 21, 8:24 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2008, at 11:14 AM, William Stein wrote:
Hi,
> >> 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.
The number of bundles in trac is rather small and most of those
bundles either have review issues or shouldn't be bundles in the first
place [as you stated above], so applying them to a pre-3.0 tree,
extracting the patch and so on should be doable.
> >> 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.
>
> I'll do that then. Probably best to do right before the release, to
> not disrupt the development cycle (and as the actual code won't
> change (check with a diff) we won't need to be concerned about
> breaking Sage). Perhaps the other packages should be changed as well.
The main ones, i.e. extcode and scripts, too and I guess it would be
nice to get all the hg repos in the spkgs fixed, too. Does this
require that we upgrade to hg 1.0 or is it fine with the release we
ship? Upgrading to 1.0 should be quick and I think I will get it done
during the 3.0.1 cycle.
> - Robert
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
