Re: [sage-devel] git question/request

2023-03-29 Thread Matthias Koeppe
Update in https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/35384 On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 1:45:41 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > well, good luck developing with such remotes :-) > > On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, 21:41 Matthias Koeppe, wrote: > >> On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 1:10:27 PM UTC-7 Dima

Re: [sage-devel] git question/request

2023-03-29 Thread Dima Pasechnik
well, good luck developing with such remotes :-) On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, 21:41 Matthias Koeppe, wrote: > On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 1:10:27 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > that's a bit unusual for tarballs to pack .git/ > subdirectory. I think it just should not be there. > > > > It is

Re: [sage-devel] git question/request

2023-03-29 Thread Matthias Koeppe
On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 1:10:27 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: that's a bit unusual for tarballs to pack .git/ subdirectory. I think it just should not be there. It is placed there deliberately so that users can start development directly from an unpacked tarball. -- You received

Re: [sage-devel] git question/request

2023-03-29 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, 18:32 John H Palmieri, wrote: > Would it be a good idea for Sage tarballs, at least the development > versions, to come with `upstream` defined already? With a fresh 10.0.beta6 > tarball: > > % git remote -v > trac https://github.com/sagemath/sagetrac-mirror.git (fetch) >

[sage-devel] git question/request

2023-03-29 Thread John H Palmieri
Would it be a good idea for Sage tarballs, at least the development versions, to come with `upstream` defined already? With a fresh 10.0.beta6 tarball: % git remote -v trac https://github.com/sagemath/sagetrac-mirror.git (fetch) trac ssh://g...@trac.sagemath.org:/sage.git (push) Should