On Oct 26, 2009, at 8:03 PM, kcrisman wrote: >> Yep. Is anyone against a prohibition of spkg upgrades and major re- >> factoring for small point releases? > > I would point out that sometimes minor bugfixes require spkg > upgrades. For instance, sometimes to "properly" fix even tiny > problems with symbolics really requires a change to the pynac package, > and obviously now lots of things with the notebook would require a > change to that spkg, etc. So I don't know how realistic this is, but > some modification of that proposal would probably be a good idea; for > instance, perhaps that only bugfix skpg upgrades allowed for minor > point releases, as opposed to taking in new upstream releases? Just a > thought.
That is a good thing to consider, certainly there's a difference between "our" spkgs and upstream. The alternative would be to just call it a x.y release even if the spkg changes are small. Part of the point I was trying to make is that I think it's more realistic and useful to minimize/concentrate potentially disruptive changes than trying to establish a pattern of stable/bufgix only releases. This makes whether or not something's "just a bugfix" less relevant to the discussion. - Robert P.S. On a tangentially related note, only changing the sage library also has the advantage of making widespread/automated testing easier. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
