On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 3:00 AM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 2015-01-11, Nils Bruin wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 12:54:56 AM UTC-8, Martin von Gagern wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11.01.2015 09:38, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> > Hopefully it's becoming stable enough that
>>> > we should start sh
>
> >> > Hopefully it's becoming stable enough that
> >> > we should start shipping it as part of Sage?
> >>
> >> At first I thought so, too. But now I'm no longer sure: if you ship it
> >> with Sage, then it will be difficult to use it if you want to work with
> >> a patch from an older bran
Hi!
On 2015-01-11, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 12:54:56 AM UTC-8, Martin von Gagern wrote:
>>
>> On 11.01.2015 09:38, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> > Hopefully it's becoming stable enough that
>> > we should start shipping it as part of Sage?
>>
>> At first I thought so, too
On Friday, January 9, 2015 at 5:10:03 PM UTC+1, martin@gmx.net wrote:
>
> Hadn't known of git-trac before. Since the tool has some sage settings
> hard-wired into it, perhaps it should be called git-sage instead, to avoid
> clashes?
>
My goal was to keep git-trac as independent as possible f
Hadn't known of git-trac before. Since the tool has some sage settings
hard-wired into it, perhaps it should be called git-sage instead, to avoid
clashes?
Recently I've been using git the hard way for pretty much everything except
pushing, for which I used "./sage -dev push --ticket" in the hop
The branch is there, ready for a review:
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17555
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@goo
> If you want to remove the documentation about them from the developper
> guide, it is ok with me.
Okay okay, fine. I think that I will do that then, unless somebody objects.
This way those who still use them can continue, and we hope that in
something like 6 months~1 year you will have switched
Sorry, it seems my message was interrupted.
If you want to remove the documentation about them from the developper
guide, it is ok with me.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
>
>
>
> Could you why you use them instead of 'git trac' ? Is there something
> that they do and that git trac can't do ?
>
>
> As i said, it is just what i am used to. It is what i did learn to use in
the beginning, and up to now i didn't had any reason to stop using them. I
don't really kno
-a, --all
List both remote-tracking branches and local branches.
I of course agree that you can set git to not look at remote branches, but
as long as you don't explicitly ask for the list of remote branches they
are not shown in the output of "git branch". And, regardless of h
> The output of "git branch" will always only contain branches that you
> created locally.
Okay. Then Dima: instead of "git branch" try "git branch -a".
It gives only two lines on my version, but my guess is that it will
take several screens for you.
Only because of the --single-branch flag.
Na
On Saturday, December 27, 2014 1:22:29 PM UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> Type "git branch". If you see one thousand things you never fetched
> from trac, that's a confirmation.
>
The output of "git branch" will always only contain branches that you
created locally.
There is a slight differenc
> I reglarly use the dev scripts. So i would really appreciate if they remain.
Oh. Well, the developer's manual advises you to NOT use them :-P
> But of course, if they are removed i will adapt to plain git or git trac.
> But my personal preference is to keep them.
Could you why you use them ins
I reglarly use the dev scripts. So i would really appreciate if they
remain.
But of course, if they are removed i will adapt to plain git or git trac.
But my personal preference is to keep them.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
On Friday, December 26, 2014 9:07:06 PM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> On 2014-12-26, Volker Braun > wrote:
> > --=_Part_5531_1685050387.1419616059330
> > Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> > boundary="=_Part_5532_1775001320.1419616059330"
> >
> > --=_Part_5532_1775
> Further, 'Git the hard way' should be consistent, but it
> does not tell you about '--single-branch'.
Dima: If you want it to change, do something.
1) Write doc tickets
2) help me review mine.
> well, before improving at this point, we need to dig up the truth :-)
I gave you two ways out:
1)
On 2014-12-27, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>> Are you saying that the default is to constantly pull the data from the
>> remote, in the background? Really?
>
> Type "git branch". If you see one thousand things you never fetched
> from trac, that's a confirmation.
>
>> Could you point to documentation con
> Are you saying that the default is to constantly pull the data from the
> remote, in the background? Really?
Type "git branch". If you see one thousand things you never fetched
from trac, that's a confirmation.
> Could you point to documentation confirming this?
I do not think that it is writt
On 2014-12-27, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>> I don't know how one can automatically maintain a mirror of git trac,
>> without running a special script, and I believe I don't do this.
>
> I believe that it is what happens in your case, because that's the
> default.
Are you saying that the default is to
On 2014-12-27, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On 2014-12-27, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>> Yo !
>>
>>> I did give it here:
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/JtVWAdvw-3A/603M_PziLfUJ
>>>
>>> (if it matters, my git version is 1.9.1)
>>
>> Oh !!! That's because your git instal contai
> I don't know how one can automatically maintain a mirror of git trac,
> without running a special script, and I believe I don't do this.
I believe that it is what happens in your case, because that's the
default. If you want to check, you can "git clone" Sage again and
fetch a branch from there.
On 2014-12-27, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Yo !
>
>> I did give it here:
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/JtVWAdvw-3A/603M_PziLfUJ
>>
>> (if it matters, my git version is 1.9.1)
>
> Oh !!! That's because your git instal contains a
> complete copy of the trac's git server. Y
I'm in favor of removing the dev scripts eventually, but not right now.
There is still some useful functionality for importing old patches, and
maybe somebody uses them. The documentation should already be clear enough
that this is not the currently recommended way to use git. I'm fine with
rem
Yo !
> I did give it here:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/JtVWAdvw-3A/603M_PziLfUJ
>
> (if it matters, my git version is 1.9.1)
Oh !!! That's because your git instal contains a
complete copy of the trac's git server. You've got "ALL" branches on
your computer. So whe
On 2014-12-27, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On 2014-12-27, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>>> Once again: whenever I do git fetch from trac I get a local branch
>>> created on the spot:
>>
>> Can you give us the command that you type that produces this result ?
>
> I did give it here:
> https://groups.google.co
On 2014-12-27, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>> Once again: whenever I do git fetch from trac I get a local branch
>> created on the spot:
>
> Can you give us the command that you type that produces this result ?
I did give it here:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/JtVWAdvw-3A/603M_PziLfUJ
(if
> Once again: whenever I do git fetch from trac I get a local branch
> created on the spot:
Can you give us the command that you type that produces this result ?
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this gr
On 2014-12-27, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Yo !
>
>> Nathann, that's about git in developer docs, so that's not 100% off the
>> thread :-)
>
> Well, as long as we can close the question related to the removal of
> the sage-dev scripts, I personally don't care what this thread
> becomes. But I need to
Yo !
> Nathann, that's about git in developer docs, so that's not 100% off the
> thread :-)
Well, as long as we can close the question related to the removal of
the sage-dev scripts, I personally don't care what this thread
becomes. But I need to know what to do with that ! :-P
> One thing that
Nathann, that's about git in developer docs, so that's not 100% off the thread
:-)
One thing that is confusing in the "Git the hard way" is that the
example of git fetch in
http://sagemath.org/doc/developer/manual_git.html#checking-out-tickets
does not show a line like
* [new branch] u/dimp
> I found them quite practical, and you may recall from the discussions in
> Paris that I'd like them to be extended so that they are also able to
> send bug reports to the bug trackers of Singular/Gap/..., so that there is
> no need to google "how to report bugs in Singular".
>
> Nonetheless, I st
Hi Dima,
On 2014-12-26, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> IMHO dev scripts should be retired.
> Does anyone use them?
I found them quite practical, and you may recall from the discussions in
Paris that I'd like them to be extended so that they are also able to
send bug reports to the bug trackers of Singu
Very good. I guess the respective still open tickets
are wontfix then...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
T
If you do remove them don't forget to remove the associated documentation.
That is remove sage/dev but also doc/en/reference/dev and apply this little
patch too
https://github.com/cschwan/sage-on-gentoo/blob/master/sci-mathematics/sage-doc/files/sage-doc-dev.patch
François
On Saturday, Decembe
Hey guys... I hate to interrupt your debugging but I had a question
about . Can I create a patch to remove that, in
the end ?
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it
Hey guys... I hate to interrupt your debugging but I had a question
about Sage-devel. Can I create a patch to remove that, in the end ?
Nathann
On 27 December 2014 at 03:45, Volker Braun wrote:
> I'd say by definition a git branch is what is listed by "git branch". Having
> said that, it is just
I'd say by definition a git branch is what is listed by "git branch".
Having said that, it is just a label for a commit. There are other kinds of
labels for commits, for example tags. Whenever you fetch (pull) something
from a remote a local copy (of the commits on the remote) is made, and they
On 2014-12-26, Volker Braun wrote:
> --=_Part_5531_1685050387.1419616059330
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="=_Part_5532_1775001320.1419616059330"
>
> --=_Part_5532_1775001320.1419616059330
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Friday, December 26, 2
On Friday, December 26, 2014 6:23:43 PM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> By the way, I noticed some change in the behaviour of trac git server;
> it seems that fetching u/foo/bar automatically results in
> creation of a local branch trac/u/foo/bar.
No it doesn't. Local branches would be in the
> By the way, I noticed some change in the behaviour of trac git server;
> it seems that fetching u/foo/bar automatically results in
> creation of a local branch trac/u/foo/bar.
>
> Is this documented anywhere?
No idea. Really, these days I am trying to make the developer's manual
something I can
On 2014-12-26, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> --f46d043c7edc287181050b1f0d5c
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Helloo everybody !
>
> There is no pub in a radius of 40km of where I live, so I spend my evenings
> rewriting Sage's developer manual.
>
> Tonight I have two questions for yo
41 matches
Mail list logo
