On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:36 AM, John Cremona<john.crem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That sounds quite sensible to me.
What is "that"? It sounds below like you're basically arguing for
what we currently do.
Regarding what we currently do, this is not something that is
"convention emerging" or "standardization attempt". It's something
that Michael Abshoff standardized on probably 8-10 months ago, and as
far as I know strongly required (at least, I remember getting a *lot*
of complaints from him and others when I didn't use that convention).
I personally had another convention, which was:
reponame-tracnumber-description_of_it.patch
Having been convinced by Michael and others many many months ago to
switch to trac_tracnumber-description_of_it.patch, even though I
didn't personally find it optimal, I now think we should continue with
this standard, since it does seem to work well in practice.
> Sometimes I make a patch before
> opening a ticket, so the patch name does not have the ticket number on
> it (e.g. #6386 opened yesterday). But it would not be a bad thing if
> I had opened the ticket first (to indicate that I was working on it)
> so that I would have had the number available when creating the patch.
Indeed. The current trac naming convention really strongly encouraged
you to "do the right thing", which is to always open a trac ticket for
whatever you're working on.
I think the following is a counterexample to "The trac_ prefix does
not bring any useful information."
> I like to be able to clear out all the patches which lie around on
> various computers. I know that any patch with a trac number on it
> will exist on trac so can be deleted; anything without a number is
> more likely to be some work inprogress which I have saved from one
> Sage build to carry on with on another, so I tend not to delete those.
>
> John
"Starting the patch name with the ticket number defeats tab
completion when sorting through a large number of patches,
typically in a mercurial queue. It is a life saver for me to be
able to do hg qpop categories-fra<tab>"
This could perhaps be solved via technical methods, e.g., some
improvement to how the tab completion works.
William
> 2009/6/23 Nicolas M. Thiery <nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr>:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Apparently, there is a convention emerging to name systematically all
>> patches on trac as trac_####_description.patch. I very much value this
>> standardization attempt, especially in a period where things are
>> getting automatized. We need it! In particular, I find it very useful
>> to include the trac ticket number. On the other hand, let me argue
>> about some inconveniences of the current naming scheme:
>>
>> - The trac_ prefix does not bring any useful information.
>>
>> - Starting the patch name with the ticket number defeats tab
>> completion when sorting through a large number of patches,
>> typically in a mercurial queue. It is a life saver for me to be
>> able to do hg qpop categories-fra<tab>
>>
>> Thoughs?
>>
>> For the record, here is the naming scheme we use in Sage-Combinat:
>>
>> the_theme-the_description-ticket_number-author_initials.patch
>>
>> example:
>>
>> categories-freemodule-6136-nt.patch
>>
>> Best,
>> Nicolas
>> --
>> Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
>> http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
>>
>> >
>>
>
> >
>
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
