Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> writes: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thursday, 15 March 2012 17:55:31 UTC+8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >>> >>> Okay, I'll think about your suggestion and changing the merger >>> procedure. But I'll be honest that this is not too high on my list of >>> priorities. >> >> >> 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. > > +1. Note that this is rather orthogonal from the git vs. hg > discussion, right now we're using hg as a glorified diff and patch > (and periodically-constructed changelog).
Just to be clear: the git vs. hg discussion, the destroying history of dev releases discussion, and the patches vs. push/pull discussion are all orthogonal to each other, though push/pull exposes the problems with destroying history more clearly than the patches workflow does (as I said in my reply to Dima). Of these three things, IMO the most important is patches vs. push/pull . I really just made this thread in the hopes of getting the destroying history problem out of the way so that it won't stand as a barrier to switching to push/pull (though it is bad in its own right anyway, even when using patches). -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
