I agree. I started developing for Sage last week and used the clone function twice before moving on to queues. Queues are not difficult to understand and the bookkeeping is rather minimal, so I think that the Developer's guide could skip clone completely.
As an aside, how sophisticated are the various building and testing steps of the development process actually with regards to knowing what has changed? It seems that outside Mercurial and Sphinx, everything is always assumed changed so everything is built anew, tested anew, etc. Is this correct? And could something be done to improve it (e.g. doctest only changed files)? Cheers, Johan On Aug 1, 8:51 pm, William Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Harald Schilly > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 1, 8:07 pm, Fredrik Johansson <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> sage -clone new_branch takes 15 minutes on my "fast" laptop (and about > >> twice that time on my slow laptop). > > > That's the reason why I never clone and just use mercurial queues (and > > also never do hg checkins). When the queue is empty I can always check > > via hg status if there are any accidental changes left. > > Same -- I haven't used "sage -clone" in probably a year. It would be > good to update the Developer's guide to not suggest that "sage -clone" > is the first thing one does. > > -- William > > > > > H > > > -- > > To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to > > [email protected] > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel > > URL:http://www.sagemath.org > > -- > William Stein > Professor of Mathematics > University of Washingtonhttp://wstein.org -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
