Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> writes: > well, I think that Keshav's approach is very important if we want to decrease > the huge rate of bitrot we have now > with patches that did not make it into a release quickly. > As the current scheme of things destroys the history of development, it gets > hard to recreate the state of source when > the now bit-rotten patch has been working.
This is really a problem with the fact that we use patch files at all (instead of pushing and pulling), not really related to what I am complaining about in this thread. Don't worry, changing that is on my radar too :) In fact, the ability of `hg qimport` to do fuzzy patching is actually *masking* the problems with the current approach, not exemplifying them. > By the way, is http://hg.sagemath.org/ now officially dead? It didn't change a > bit since January or so... hg.sagemath.org is only updated when we have an official release. The last official release was 4.8, which was in January :) By the way, this means that we are actually not rewriting public history if by "public history" one means "history on hg.sagemath.org". However, when we are told to base our patches on the development releases, I think it's no longer realistic to say that the commits seen in development releases are not public - and that is where the history rewriting is happening. -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
