On Thursday, January 17, 2013 2:13:02 AM UTC, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > Mind you, when I worked on the latest Maxima update (#13364), I had to do > git > bisect on *Maxima* repo to debug *Sage*, and then apply the results of > this > investigation to stripped of .git/ Maxima source tree, for which I did not > have an exact mapping back to Maxima repo. >
The spkg-install scripts should have an option to use a plain checked-out source tree instead of the tarball for development purposes. Likewise, it should be possible to build/test/install the spkg without having to tar (sage -pkg) it up first. But none of that would be helped by stuffing the maxima sources (say) in the Sage repo. For starters, how do you order the upstream commits relative to the Sage library commits? Things that have to be touched simultaneously must be in the same repo. But the maxima developers never touch the Sage library (how could they), so there is no benefit in imposing any particular order between our commits and their commits. In fact, just sorting in commits by date, say, would make maxima harder to debug. Suddenly your bisect would unroll changes in all other libraries in Sage, which would be a huge headache. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
