On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:16:46AM +0200, William Stein wrote:
> Regarding what we currently do, this is not something that is
> "convention emerging" or "standardization attempt". It's something
> that Michael Abshoff standardized on probably 8-10 months ago, and as
> far as I know strongly required (at least, I remember getting a *lot*
> of complaints from him and others when I didn't use that convention).
I saw that Michael was using this convention internally. But I never
got any request for this as an external convention until yesterday
(it's not like I did not post any patch). And I far as I know, it is
not documented anywhere. Or is it? (I asked and was told to add it
myself, hence this thread).
> Having been convinced by Michael and others many many months ago to
> switch to trac_tracnumber-description_of_it.patch, even though I
> didn't personally find it optimal, I now think we should continue with
> this standard, since it does seem to work well in practice.
Is there any infrastructure relying deeply on it?
> Indeed. The current trac naming convention really strongly encouraged
> you to "do the right thing", which is to always open a trac ticket for
> whatever you're working on.
Definitely. That also why I 100% support having the ticket number in
the patch name.
> I think the following is a counterexample to "The trac_ prefix does
> not bring any useful information."
I still think it's not really, and it is just making the name longer,
but I don't really care either.
> "Starting the patch name with the ticket number defeats tab
> completion when sorting through a large number of patches,
> typically in a mercurial queue. It is a life saver for me to be
> able to do hg qpop categories-fra<tab>"
>
> This could perhaps be solved via technical methods, e.g., some
> improvement to how the tab completion works.
If it was only within Sage, yes. But doing this in all shells and file
browsers that our developers are using does not quite seem like an
option to me.
I am not saying our convention is optimal; I was just pointing at it
for the record. Actually, for most case, it is indeed too verbose, and
we often shorten the description part. But I really do want to insist
on having the description *first*.
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
