Martin Rubey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | > On 03/28/2006 08:57 AM, Martin Rubey wrote: | > > I believe that the following procedure for patches would be a *lot* better: | > > * if necessary, open an issue in IssueTracker | > > * upload the patch to MathAction | > > This automatically sends a mail to axiom-developer. In case you want to make | > > sure, you can additionally send a mail to Tim. | > | > Why don't you use tla? | > | > Make a new branch from axiom--main--1, hack at the new branch and if it is | > finished, tell Tim that there is something new available ready for merge. Tim | > then could investigate that branch, test and check documentation, and if he | > finds that it is all fine just do a star-merge to axiom--main--1. Would that be | > bad? | | Not too bad, but if the patches are available on IssueTracker, I have the | information immediately at hand. I find it easier to look up proposed patches | on IssueTracker than via the ChangeLog of tla. | | Maybe I'm wrong here. It's not so important to me.
No, you're not alone. Maybe I'm biased too, after a decade of working on GCC -- where what you describe has been implemented and it works pretty well. Also, a public review, comments helps other (potential) contributors to gain understanding of the system. -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
