On 27 Mai, 16:59, kcrisman wrote:
> On May 27, 10:32 am, leif wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 27 Mai, 02:34, William Stein wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:31 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> > > >> > Not without having someone over your shoulder, which is why I still
> > > >> > don't/can't use them. (Mayb
On May 27, 10:32 am, leif wrote:
> On 27 Mai, 02:34, William Stein wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:31 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> > >> > Not without having someone over your shoulder, which is why I still
> > >> > don't/can't use them. (Maybe Rob and Jason will finally teach me when
> > >>
On 27 Mai, 02:34, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:31 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> >> > Not without having someone over your shoulder, which is why I still
> >> > don't/can't use them. (Maybe Rob and Jason will finally teach me when
> >> > they visit in June!).
> Go for it! I wrote h
On May 26, 8:34 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:31 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> >> > Not without having someone over your shoulder, which is why I still
> >> > don't/can't use them. (Maybe Rob and Jason will finally teach me when
> >> > they visit in June!).
>
> >> Sure. For a
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:31 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>> > Not without having someone over your shoulder, which is why I still
>> > don't/can't use them. (Maybe Rob and Jason will finally teach me when
>> > they visit in June!).
>>
>> Sure. For a single patch, do
>>
>> hg qnew -f some_name # create
> > Not without having someone over your shoulder, which is why I still
> > don't/can't use them. (Maybe Rob and Jason will finally teach me when
> > they visit in June!).
>
> Sure. For a single patch, do
>
> hg qnew -f some_name # create a changeset
> hg qref -e # refresh the patch, including th
On 26 Mai, 23:51, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On May 26, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
> > Right now, of course, you could point to the listing given in the
> > release notes. However, often the trac ticket titles are (1) not
> > very descriptive, (2) often poorly reflect what is actuall
On May 26, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 5/26/10 5:33 AM, William Stein wrote:
Your arguments would also suggest that any of the Sage repositories
should
have their logs in a text file as well. Should the main Sage Python
library!? Should the
local/bin/ repository have a text fi
On May 26, 2010, at 11:55 AM, kcrisman wrote:
way around that. Personally, I would say anyone not using queues is
at
a disadvantage,
True.
and they're really easy to pick up (especially if
Not without having someone over your shoulder, which is why I still
don't/can't use them. (Maybe R
> I Sage, there's no tab-completion for file names (and the syntax is
> odd, and Sage takes too long to start up).
True, but I'm often testing at the same time as I'm checking something
in the (potential) patch or in the log. Then it becomes convenient.
> (There's no "usage" tab-completion in ".
On 5/26/10 5:33 AM, William Stein wrote:
Your arguments would also suggest that any of the Sage repositories should
have their logs in a text file as well. Should the main Sage Python
library!? Should the
local/bin/ repository have a text file?
You know, for certain things, this might not b
On 5/26/10 1:55 PM, kcrisman wrote:
way around that. Personally, I would say anyone not using queues is at
a disadvantage,
True.
and they're really easy to pick up (especially if
Not without having someone over your shoulder, which is why I still
don't/can't use them. (Maybe Rob and Jas
On 26 Mai, 20:55, kcrisman wrote:
> Random remark: One reason why HG alone is much harder than in Sage is
> that there is no tab completion of the various HG commands, no
> interactive verbose help accessible as easily with a ?, etc. That has
> saved me in hg_sage many, many times.
I Sage, there
> way around that. Personally, I would say anyone not using queues is at
> a disadvantage,
True.
> and they're really easy to pick up (especially if
Not without having someone over your shoulder, which is why I still
don't/can't use them. (Maybe Rob and Jason will finally teach me when
th
On May 26, 2010, at 2:06 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
On 25 May 2010 20:58, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
On May 25, 2010, at 12:35 PM, kcrisman wrote:
SPKG.txt version
=== r-2.10.1.p0 (David Kirkby, February 16th 2010) ===
Are you really suggesting that the commit message should be this
long? Ma
> > Our point is that the new blood you are looking for will have to come with a
> > knowledge of mercurial if they want to know what's going on.
>
> I agree.
That's too bad. Remember, this is a *math* project, not a computer
project per se. Some of your developer base (maybe not ever a "main"
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:52 AM, François Bissey
wrote:
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:30 AM, François Bissey
>>
>> wrote:
>> >> On 25 May 2010 20:58, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> >> > On May 25, 2010, at 12:35 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>> >> >> SPKG.txt version
>> >> >>
>> >> >> === r-2.10.1.p0 (David K
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:30 AM, François Bissey
>
> wrote:
> >> On 25 May 2010 20:58, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> >> > On May 25, 2010, at 12:35 PM, kcrisman wrote:
> >> >> SPKG.txt version
> >> >>
> >> >> === r-2.10.1.p0 (David Kirkby, February 16th 2010) ===
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Are you
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:30 AM, François Bissey
wrote:
>> On 25 May 2010 20:58, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> > On May 25, 2010, at 12:35 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>> >> SPKG.txt version
>> >>
>> >> === r-2.10.1.p0 (David Kirkby, February 16th 2010) ===
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Are you really suggesting that the c
> On 25 May 2010 20:58, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> > On May 25, 2010, at 12:35 PM, kcrisman wrote:
> >> SPKG.txt version
> >>
> >> === r-2.10.1.p0 (David Kirkby, February 16th 2010) ===
>
>
>
> >> Are you really suggesting that the commit message should be this
> >> long? Maybe they should be!
On 25 May 2010 20:58, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On May 25, 2010, at 12:35 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>> SPKG.txt version
>>
>> === r-2.10.1.p0 (David Kirkby, February 16th 2010) ===
>> Are you really suggesting that the commit message should be this
>> long? Maybe they should be!
>
> Yes, I've got no
On May 25, 2010, at 1:17 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 5/25/10 3:07 PM, kcrisman wrote:
There remains one additional problem. If we have been putting long
information into SPKG.txt for a while with almost no information in
the commit messages, getting rid of the SPKG.txt ones will leave a
fai
On May 25, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 5/25/10 2:56 PM, William A. Stein wrote:
On May 25, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Jason Grouts...@creativetrax.com> wrote:
On 5/25/10 2:01 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On May 25, 2010, at 11:50 AM, William Stein wrote:
Having info about patches is
On 5/25/10 3:07 PM, kcrisman wrote:
There remains one additional problem. If we have been putting long
information into SPKG.txt for a while with almost no information in
the commit messages, getting rid of the SPKG.txt ones will leave a
fairly large piece of their history mysterious at bes
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:56 PM, William A. Stein wrote:
> Interesting. If I remember correctly, you and I had a long discussion about
> those patch files, in which I was totally against them, and you argued for
> them. I think they are there now mostly because of you. I'm still against
>
On 5/25/10 2:56 PM, William A. Stein wrote:
On May 25, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 5/25/10 2:01 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On May 25, 2010, at 11:50 AM, William Stein wrote:
Having info about patches is a good idea. I'm definitely not
convinced SPKG.txt is the right plac
> > And I reiterate that I recall somewhere a suggestion on sage-devel
> > that commit messages should be one line long. Does no one else
> > remember that? Or did it mean it should not have any carriage
> > returns, but be as long as it wants (in which case this was not clear
> > at all)?
>
> O
On May 25, 2010, at 12:35 PM, kcrisman wrote:
On May 25, 3:05 pm, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:02 PM, kcrisman
wrote:
changelog, where it will scroll off the bottom and be forgotten.
I'd
This is my main point, as well as for those who in the future will
just be lear
On 5/25/10 2:52 PM, William A. Stein wrote:
+1 to Robert's comments. Already, I don't ever make or use foo.patch files
anymore because they are completely redundant and one more easily-forgotten
step to make (they should be totally automated if they are required).
Interesting
I'm not s
On May 25, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 5/25/10 2:01 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On May 25, 2010, at 11:50 AM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> Having info about patches is a good idea. I'm definitely not
>>> convinced SPKG.txt is the right place for it. I would install prop
On May 25, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 5/25/10 2:01 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On May 25, 2010, at 11:50 AM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> Having info about patches is a good idea. I'm definitely not
>>> convinced SPKG.txt is the right place for it. I would install prop
On May 25, 3:05 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:02 PM, kcrisman wrote:
> >> changelog, where it will scroll off the bottom and be forgotten. I'd
>
> > This is my main point, as well as for those who in the future will
> > just be learning hg and find going the right direct
On 5/25/10 2:01 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On May 25, 2010, at 11:50 AM, William Stein wrote:
Having info about patches is a good idea. I'm definitely not
convinced SPKG.txt is the right place for it. I would install propose
something *like* for every patch foo, having a file foo.wtf (or
som
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:02 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>> changelog, where it will scroll off the bottom and be forgotten. I'd
>
> This is my main point, as well as for those who in the future will
> just be learning hg and find going the right directory etc.
> difficult.
sage -hg log |more
??
>
> A
On May 25, 2010, at 11:50 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
On May 25, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 5/25/10 12:41 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
Hi all,
I just had a new spkg (rightly) rejected because it didn't have a
changelog entr
> changelog, where it will scroll off the bottom and be forgotten. I'd
This is my main point, as well as for those who in the future will
just be learning hg and find going the right directory etc.
difficult.
As for HISTORY.txt, I don't understand why that isn't updated, since
http://www.sagema
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On May 25, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
>> On 5/25/10 12:41 PM, Robert Bradshaw 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 [
On 5/25/10 1:23 PM, kcrisman wrote:
On May 25, 1:50 pm, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Robert Bradshaw
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
On May 25, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 5/25/10 12:41 PM, Robert Bradshaw 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 fi
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:23 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> On May 25, 1:50 pm, William Stein wrote:
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Robert Bradshaw
>>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>>
>> > I just had a new spkg (rightly) rejected because it didn't have a changelog
>> > entry in SPKG.txt , as specifie
On May 25, 2010, at 11:23 AM, kcrisman wrote:
On May 25, 1:50 pm, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Robert Bradshaw
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
On 5/25/10 12:41 PM, Robert Bradshaw 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 contr
On May 25, 1:50 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Robert Bradshaw
>
> 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 t
43 matches
Mail list logo
