On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, 15 March 2012 17:55:31 UTC+8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> >> Okay, I'll think about your suggestion and changing the merger >> procedure. But I'll be honest that this is not too high on my list of >> priorities. > > > well, I think that Keshav's approach is very important if we want to > decrease the huge rate of bitrot we have now > with patches that did not make it into a release quickly. > As the current scheme of things destroys the history of development, it gets > hard to recreate the state of source when > the now bit-rotten patch has been working.
+1. Note that this is rather orthogonal from the git vs. hg discussion, right now we're using hg as a glorified diff and patch (and periodically-constructed changelog). > By the way, is http://hg.sagemath.org/ now officially dead? It didn't change > a bit since January or so... In the current release model, there's no "history" to push to the the central repository until a final release is cut, as it keeps getting re-written and tossed. Part of this proposal would be that hg.sagemath.org (or its equivalent) would be the actual current development head(s). - Robert -- 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
