"Georg S. Weber" <georgswe...@googlemail.com> writes: > Yes, > I can see your point, thanks for clarifying it! > > My bad, my mind was still set to the "old" mode that any patches > simply have to be based against some (preferably the latest) > *official* Sage release. (With the obvious exception of a series of > patches with well defined and clearly stated dependencies --- but the > "root" patches still would have to be against the latest official > version of Sage.) > > The downside is, that if two (or more) patches collide (which may not > easily (or shall not) be put in one and the same "series of patches", > for whatever reason), only one can win --- and all the others have to > be rebased on the "then next" official Sage version. A downside that > is the more acceptable, the higher the Sage release frequency is --- > simply because then, the probability of such collisions decreases. I > had this "old scenario" in mind when I wrote my answer, but didn't say > so expicitly, sorry!
Yes, that's certainly true. Ideally nobody should be forced to rebase (as opposed to merge) anything anyway, as I said in the OP of this thread. -Keshav ---- Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net ! -- 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
