On Apr 21, 2009, at 7:50 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> This is exactly why we do it. Sage ships this way and I think it's >> been a significant factor in attracting developers. > > Sorry, can't resist... Could you tell me why a developer would be > attracted by this? To make use of ".hg", they need to have mercurial, > then... Do you think any DEVELOPER will find it cumbersome to do "hg > clone http://hg.cython.org/cython"; ??
With the Sage project, most (in my anecdotal evidence) developers started out as users, then notice a typo in the documentation, or missing functionality, or just look at the code (it's easy to get the code for any function at the prompt) and say "I could do this better." I have the feeling that a lot of them would not go so far as to download the repo separately to start hacking on it, or at least would not have done so so soon. In fact, many people edit first, then want to submit changes later. Of course there are several differences between Sage and Cython, noteably the tech-savvyness of the intended audience, the fact that Sage ships with many components as well as the core source (e.g. it ships with mercurial--which is the right choice for Sage), and its sheer size. But I think a lot remains the same. Other than saving a few MB on a users hard drive, I have yet to see any compelling reasons against it. - Robert _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
