On Jan 17, 10:31 am, David Joyner <wdjoy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given your time constraints and the problems you mentioned,
> what I would do is the following (though possibly Michael might
> recommend something else):
>
> (a) apply to a clone of the most recent version of Sage the
> changes you want (including those of M Hansen)
> "manually",
hg provides merge tools for that, i.e. k3diff is some people's
preferred tool to do that on Linux.
> (b) create a new "big" patch and attach it to 4036. (this is
> the rebase). Test this on as many platforms as you can.
This might or might not be a good idea since that screws with the
credit situation. Ideally you would use Queues to rebase the patch
series and fold together patches. In this situation I would just
complain long enough until Mike posts a rebased patch.
> (c) Mention as a trac comment what you just said (you give
> everything a positive review, but you added some material ...), then
> replace "needs rebase" by "positive review, needs further review".
> (I can't find the "legal" strings for trac tickets
> onhttp://wiki.sagemath.org/TracGuidelines,
> but it's something like this.)
Don't do that, just change the status to "needs review" and then
explain on the ticket which additional patches need review. If you
rebase things be also very specific what patches to apply in which
order. Long and somewhat ambiguous ticket descriptions make the ticket
get picked up by the wrong report and I will then rename it.
> (d) Email someone to ask for an immediate quick review. I can try
> myself or maybe Martin Rubey or Simon King can?
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
