2009/5/5 gsw <georgswe...@googlemail.com>: > >> 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.
That looks like a good reason! I had no idea that anyone was interested enough in eclib internals to the extent of making improvements! Feel free to ask me if anything is not clear (perhaps off list). This code goes back so long there may well be some redundant stuff in there (in fact I know of one or two redundant bits). John > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
