On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:38 PM, mabshoff wrote: > On Jan 17, 10:31 am, David Joyner 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. >
That is what I meant by "manual". Are there other tools in hg that would make it even easier? >> (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. <rant> hg still seems rather mysterious and difficult to me and the hg interface stuff embedded in Sage just adds to the confusion. Perhaps these tools, and trac as a whole, are very productive for dedicated "full time" developers but for me they remain a bit of a barrier that I need to overcome every time I want to contribute something to Sage. What I am missing is a 3-step (or even 10-step) "How-to" kind of recipe to which I can refer two months later when I think I want to try it again. </rant> > In this situation I would just complain long enough until Mike posts > a rebased patch. > I believe that is what I was doing at the start of this thread. :-) >> (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 on >> http://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. > Are phrases like "needs review", "needs rebase", etc. a standard part of trac or just something added-on for Sage? >> (d) Email someone to ask for an immediate quick review. I can >> try myself or maybe Martin Rubey or Simon King can? > I would be thankful for any interest shown in the Axiom interface for Sage. :-) Regards, Bill Page. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
