Le mardi 06 mars, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit: > On 2012-03-06 10:29, Julien Puydt wrote: > > Will you take it bad if I notice a good chunk of those problems > > exist just because sage has an organization where each spkg is a > > separate versioned project hidden in a binary archive? > Of course, I agree that the organization of spkgs could be a lot > better, but that's not the point of this thread.
I think it is : if sage had an (unversioned?) upstream/ directory containing the raw archives of upstream sources, and all the rest correctly versioned in a single tree, then : - each development version would naturally be based on the previous one ; - there would be no point checking for "uncommitted changes" in a hundred places ; - there would be no "missing files" (they would show up in "whatever-dvcs status") ; - etc. Snark on #sagemath -- 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
