> I'm following this thread because it seems close to what I have been > thinking about regarding eclib, which is also its own "upstream" in > the sense that the particular combination of source and Makefiles in > eclib exists only for inclusion in Sage. When first packaging up > eclib code for Sage I did make an hg repository for it but it is > redundant since I don't use hg at all outside Sage. So next time I > have reason for updating th eclib spkg I may delete those .hg > directories (unless Michael can come up with a reason why I should > keep them).
Well, I'm in the middle of hacking into eclib some proof-of-concept code for the P1List topic (see sage-nt). When done, my plan was to create a hg patch just as for parts of the Sage Library, and send you a link. Eventually, a later version of that patch might even become a "with patch enhancement trac ticket". At least from my point of view, I do see advantages in eclib keeping its mercurial repo. Cheers, gsw > > John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
