On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:27 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw writes:
>> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
>>> Robert Bradshaw writes:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
> I would actually like the patchbot to NOT do continuous builds and
>
Robert Bradshaw writes:
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
>> Robert Bradshaw writes:
>>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
I would actually like the patchbot to NOT do continuous builds and
tests, once we move to a push/pull system. There should be
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw writes:
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
>>> I would actually like the patchbot to NOT do continuous builds and
>>> tests, once we move to a push/pull system. There should be a big button
>>> on each ticket
Robert Bradshaw writes:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
>> I would actually like the patchbot to NOT do continuous builds and
>> tests, once we move to a push/pull system. There should be a big button
>> on each ticket which says "Test Me!", which will cause the patchbot to
>
Martin Albrecht writes:
> On Friday 02 Mar 2012, Keshav Kini wrote:
>> The main thing that github "does better" is probably to have a userbase
>> about ten times the size of bitbucket, which means it's much more likely
>> to find your current collaborators already on github than to find them
>> al
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw writes:
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
>>> For example, if two
>>> people have branches named trac-n, the script should just do nothing,
>>> not try to pick the most recently updated one, or look for bran
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Le samedi 03 mars, Ivan Andrus a écrit:
>> I assume (since it's git) that there is some magic that will let me
>> specify N branches and then merge them into an unnamed branch that I
>> can then use to build and run the version I'm interested
Le samedi 03 mars, Ivan Andrus a écrit:
> I assume (since it's git) that there is some magic that will let me
> specify N branches and then merge them into an unnamed branch that I
> can then use to build and run the version I'm interested in. Is this
> in fact possible? Or rather, how much more
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Ivan Andrus wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
>> kcrisman writes:
>>> On Mar 1, 9:20 am, Keshav Kini wrote:
The main thing I want for Sage's development process is a push/pull
architecture of some kind. I don't mind if that ends up
On 3/3/12 10:47 AM, Ivan Andrus wrote:
On Mar 1, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
kcrisman writes:
On Mar 1, 9:20 am, Keshav Kini wrote:
The main thing I want for Sage's development process is a push/pull
architecture of some kind. I don't mind if that ends up meaning that we
finally sta
On Mar 1, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
> kcrisman writes:
>> On Mar 1, 9:20 am, Keshav Kini wrote:
>>> The main thing I want for Sage's development process is a push/pull
>>> architecture of some kind. I don't mind if that ends up meaning that we
>>> finally start using Mercurial in the w
Robert Bradshaw writes:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
>> For example, if two
>> people have branches named trac-n, the script should just do nothing,
>> not try to pick the most recently updated one, or look for branch names
>> in the comments, or whatever :)
>
> Or one cou
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Friday 02 Mar 2012, Keshav Kini wrote:
> [snip]
>> > There are some things github does better, though. I can't recall them
>> > off the top of my head, though.
>>
>> I find github to be a lot faster than bitbucket, for some reaso
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw writes:
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
>>> I do notice that David Roe's description for Review Days includes
>>> something like a feature request for better code review procedures, such
>>> as line commen
Hi,
On Friday 02 Mar 2012, Keshav Kini wrote:
[snip]
> > There are some things github does better, though. I can't recall them
> > off the top of my head, though.
>
> I find github to be a lot faster than bitbucket, for some reason, though
> maybe it's some consequence of being in Singapore.
>
Robert Bradshaw writes:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
>> I do notice that David Roe's description for Review Days includes
>> something like a feature request for better code review procedures, such
>> as line comments. Github's tracker can do that without any further
>> co
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw writes:
>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
>>> William Stein writes:
It's difficult for me because they are patch in hg format, but I can't
export a patch out of git in hg format. It's possible t
Robert Bradshaw writes:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
>> William Stein writes:
>>> It's difficult for me because they are patch in hg format, but I can't
>>> export a patch out of git in hg format. It's possible to import the
>>> code in from the trac ticket, but then if
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
> William Stein writes:
>> Amazingly, after all we went through, I still have a messed up repo
>> (no master branch). Sigh.
>>
>> deep:d wstein$ git branch
>> 12594
>> github-master
>> lfun
>> * trac_8393
>>
>> I guess I should just start
Jason Grout writes:
> You're right. In fact, bitbucket supports git as well. In many ways,
> bitbucket is nicer than github, for example, the issue tracker is
> better, in my opinion (bitbucket has priorities for tickets, for
> example), and the display on bitbucket is much nicer (the informatio
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
> Also, besides your posts I was also remembering something you said to
> William (and everyone else) at Sage Days 29 last year about how you could
> vouch for github working well for IPython, if William wanted a testimonial
> about it.
Oh certai
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
> I didn't mean to imply you were suggesting we move to github at all. I meant
> that you were suggesting we *consider* moving to github, based on your own
> experience. Is that still wrong?
No, that's certainly correct. Given our positive exper
On Mar 1, 2012 7:50 AM, "Keshav Kini" wrote:
>
> kcrisman writes:
> > On Mar 1, 9:20 am, Keshav Kini wrote:
> >> The main thing I want for Sage's development process is a push/pull
> >> architecture of some kind. I don't mind if that ends up meaning that we
> >> finally start using Mercurial in
Hi Fernando,
I didn't mean to imply you were suggesting we move to github at all. I
meant that you were suggesting we *consider* moving to github, based on
your own experience. Is that still wrong?
Also, besides your posts I was also remembering something you said to
William (and everyone else
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
> IPython is also on github,
> and Fernando has strongly recommended we consider moving Sage to github
> (and has been doing so for at least 8 months, as far as I can recall).
If that's how you understood my posts, I wasn't clear enough then.
I'v
kcrisman writes:
> On Mar 1, 9:20 am, Keshav Kini wrote:
>> The main thing I want for Sage's development process is a push/pull
>> architecture of some kind. I don't mind if that ends up meaning that we
>> finally start using Mercurial in the way it was "meant" to be used,
>
> Using HG in this wa
On Mar 1, 9:20 am, Keshav Kini wrote:
> Martin Albrecht writes:
> > Hi,
>
> > please excuse my ignorance especially if this has been covered before, but
> > as
> > far as I can you can do the fork & pull-request development model with
> > mercurial as well, e.g.http://bitbucket.orgsupports it.
Martin Albrecht writes:
> Hi,
>
> please excuse my ignorance especially if this has been covered before, but as
> far as I can you can do the fork & pull-request development model with
> mercurial as well, e.g. http://bitbucket.org supports it. I have never used
> it
> though and I never used
On 3/1/12 3:18 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
Hi,
please excuse my ignorance especially if this has been covered before, but as
far as I can you can do the fork& pull-request development model with
mercurial as well, e.g. http://bitbucket.org supports it. I have never used it
though and I never use
Hi,
please excuse my ignorance especially if this has been covered before, but as
far as I can you can do the fork & pull-request development model with
mercurial as well, e.g. http://bitbucket.org supports it. I have never used it
though and I never used the equivalent on github.
https://conf
William Stein writes:
> Amazingly, after all we went through, I still have a messed up repo
> (no master branch). Sigh.
>
> deep:d wstein$ git branch
> 12594
> github-master
> lfun
> * trac_8393
>
> I guess I should just start over.
You almost never need to start over with git. Just `git f
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:12 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> It's difficult for me because they are patch in hg format, but I can't
> export a patch out of git in hg format. It's possible to import the
> code in from the trac ticket, but then if I make changes I have to
> export them as a git diff
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
> William Stein writes:
>> Note that it is not obvious or documented how to effectively do this
>> with the Sage library with other people, and still properly submit
>> stuff for inclusion in Sage, but it should be possible.
>>
>> I setup somet
William Stein writes:
> Note that it is not obvious or documented how to effectively do this
> with the Sage library with other people, and still properly submit
> stuff for inclusion in Sage, but it should be possible.
>
> I setup something exactly like the above for trac #12545:
> http://tra
Jason Grout writes:
> On 2/28/12 7:04 PM, David Roe wrote:
>> Is there an easy way to collaborate on an experimental set of patches on
>> top of Sage? The sage-combinat model is very close to what I'm looking
>> for, but it seems difficult to set up all the infrastructure: we have to
>> have a se
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 2/28/12 7:04 PM, David Roe wrote:
>>
>> Is there an easy way to collaborate on an experimental set of patches on
>> top of Sage? The sage-combinat model is very close to what I'm looking
>> for, but it seems difficult to set up all the infr
On 2/28/12 7:04 PM, David Roe wrote:
Is there an easy way to collaborate on an experimental set of patches on
top of Sage? The sage-combinat model is very close to what I'm looking
for, but it seems difficult to set up all the infrastructure: we have to
have a server analogous to http://sage.mat
37 matches
Mail list logo
