On Thursday, August 25, 2011 8:28:09 PM UTC-7, leif wrote: > > On 26 Aug., 04:35, John H Palmieri <jhpalm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, August 25, 2011 6:08:54 PM UTC-7, leif wrote: > > > John, is this still current, i.e., do we still need this (especially > > > aborting in case there are uncommitted changes)? > > > > I don't know about "need", but for example uncommitted changes in at > least > > one of the scripts repo or the main Sage repo (or maybe both) causes > > upgrading to fail in strange ways. So the point of the check is to fail > > gracefully, not fail very badly. > > Well, uncommitted changes are committed upon root repo > (re)installation anyway. (Same for scripts and the library IIRC; > extcode for sure.) >
It tries to commit the changes, but since there are some "hg commit" commands without the "-m" option specified, it tries to pop open an editor. With emacs as the editor, this screws up the output to the screen, the log for the relevant spkg, and in the end, the update. This is correctable, of course. We should just ignore lines starting with "? " there, and IMHO only > issue a warning if other changes remain; or prompt the user whether to > commit or continue, or exit, unless a to-be-implemented "force" option > was given. > Why should we ignore lines starting with "? "? Perhaps the user wanted to add the file. I don't see any reason to ignore these files, just like I wouldn't see a reason to automatically add the to the repo. -- John -- 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
