On Apr 21, 2008, at 11:34 AM, mabshoff wrote: > 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.
Sure. The other concern is people with as-yet unsubmitted code on their own computers. One will no longer be able to pull/push. (Does the current upgrade try and do that?) Maybe I could schedule doing it sometime when you're sleeping (does that ever happen? :-) 'cause it can't be done in parallel to merging very well. >>>> 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. Certainly. > 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. It requires a hacked version of hg I have on my computer, and not the kind of patch that would ever get merged upstream (without cleanup). I just asked the Mercurial guy who answered my original question if the hashes changed (again) in 1.0, but I got the impression last time that they have been sable for a while (just not as long as Sage has been around). - 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
