Vincent and Dan thanks for the replies. Just to clarify, Vincent said:
> Dependencies should be used in trac (it is one of the field in the > definition of the ticket and consists an a (possibly empty) sequence of patches). but, as Dan implied, the dependency field in trac if for when a patch requires the other patch. This is, in general, different from not commuting with a previous patch which is what I was really asking about. I have rebased Jason's patch and against 5.2-rc0.I am checking the doctests etc. When I am done I will repost the patch to trac and the queue. Jason was quite thorough. So far I have had to make only minimal changes, so I think that I would be able to review it. On the other hand, it is quite a major patch so it would be better that some one more experienced than I looks over it. Andrew On Monday, 30 July 2012 15:18:48 UTC+10, bump wrote: > > > > The wiki says that the patch should apply cleanly to the *latest > > development release*. What is confusing me is that the patches in the > > queue, and those on trac, are typically applied on top of other patches > so > > I would have guessed that quite often they will not apply cleanly to the > > release version with no patches applied. > > Most patches in the queue are *not* ready to be merged into the > development > versions. If a patch has prerequisites, those need to be merged first. But > this may not be the case with #9265 ... > > > For example, this just > happened > > when I tried to apply Jason Bandlow's patch > > trac_9265_tableaux_categories_jb.patch. On the other hand, this patch > does > > apply cleanly from the queue. > > In reviewing the patch you should check that it applies cleanly to the > latest > development version, and that it passes sage -testall. > > > Question: do you bounce the patch back to the author in this situation? > > Similarly, when you are writing patches how do you avoid this? > > In this case, I don't think Jason is working on Sage right now > so someone else will have to rebase it. This means at a minimum > figuring out what needs to be done to get it to build with 5.2.rc1 and to > pass > sage -testall. If you end up being the person who does that then probably > someone else will review it. > > Dan > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-combinat-devel" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-combinat-devel/-/DR0sMByzd_sJ. To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel?hl=en.
