On May 25, 2010, at 11:23 AM, kcrisman wrote:
On May 25, 1:50 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Robert Bradshaw
<rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote:
Hi all,
I just had a new spkg (rightly) rejected because it didn't have a
changelog
entry in SPKG.txt , as specified by [1], Does anyone know why are we
manually keeping a text changelog when the files under our control
are
already under revision control?
Because of "Abshoff Momentum"? I can think of no other reason.
I think this is silly.
It makes more sense to reject a patch because the revision history
comment is bad. Right now, with our dual system, the hg history
comments can easily be bad, since one always has the SPKG.txt to back
it up. So there are real negative consequences to the current
confusing system.
-- William
Although I have to say that for someone looking to update an spkg, it
is very helpful to have the "big picture" without scrolling through HG
comments (esp. for HG-phobes), similarly to how it is quite useful to
have the changelog.txt/HISTORY.txt file even though we have the HG log
for Sage proper. It is much easier to look quickly to see what's been
going on.
$SAGE_ROOT/HISTORY.txt is woefully out of date.
Hello folks,
Sage 3.2.3 was released on January 5th, 2009. It is available at
http://www.sagemath.org/download.html
* About Sage (http://www.sagemath.org)
Say, if one has a text editor open but has no interest in opening a
terminal window and remembering the commands that get their HG
working... and don't even get me started on trying to add HG from
inside Sage to my PATH, that shouldn't be *required* to see what has
happened in an spkg at the highest level.
In fact, I'd say the solution is to start requiring better HG messages
in *addition to* the spkg upgrades, just like has been happening
slowly on the main patches. I'll also point out that someone said HG
comments sometimes only show up one line at a time, or default display
only one line, or something.
So let's keep both, in the name of EVEN better documentation, but make
it clear both should be good.
Or am I the only one who finds SPKG.txt changes helpful?
I think they are valuable, e.g. for recording license, build,
maintainer, and build information. If people are averse to actually
firing up hg to see what changed, we could always dump hg log to
CHANGELOG.txt or something like that on packaging it up, rather than
force users to put two separate, quality commit messages in.
- Robert
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
