Hi Jason, hi Mike,
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 03:26:09PM -0400, Jason Bandlow wrote:
> On 10/22/2010 12:20 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> > Given the difficulty of finding reviewers, are you arguing we
> > shouldn't try to make things even easier? Yes, it's not to bad ([copy
> > the url, qimport, qpush] * n, build, test, run doctests, qpop, ...),
> > but could be a lot better. Oh, and by "test" I mean not doctests, but
> > interactively test, where it's more of a pain to context switch and
> > wait for the build to complete. I'd rather be reading the code and say
> > "hmm... I wonder if this works..." and just try it out.
>
> This has annoyed me on more than one occasion. Can any trac gurus speak
> to the possibility of adding two fields to trac tickets?
>
> 1) Patches to be applied for the current ticket
> 2) Tickets on which this patch depends
+1 as well!
In fact, Mike H. promised me to setup the appropriate trac options for
this (together with the cool "dependency graph" feature) last spring.
So, let's all say a big *please* to Mike!
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <[email protected]>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--
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
