On 4 Nov., 01:45, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Robert Bradshaw > > <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Jeroen Demeyer <jdeme...@cage.ugent.be> > > wrote: > >> On 2010-11-03 09:17, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > >>> A lot less hassle once it's implemented though. > >> Which "hassle"? What's the problem with the current setup? (I agree > >> that scripts can be improved) > > > Nearly every time I've worked on either sage-scripts or extcode, I've > > had to submit corresponding patches to the sage library itself. I'd > > say this is more than double the work and confusion, and especially > > doesn't play well with switching between branches. Not to mention that > > working on spkgs outside the main library is less convenient. > > +1 to Robert's suggestion...
But that's the opposite of getting more modular (instead, even more monolithic). It's IMHO better to separate the build parts from the maths. And cloning even more megs isn't nice either; the devel branches have grown much. It's ok /to be able/ to run different branches in parallel, but such should be optional. I would also e.g. remove all fonts from the SageNB (and perhaps MoinMoin) packages; they don't compress well and it doesn't make sense to have them under revision control. The SageNB repo is full of old, *deleted* fonts. -Leif -- 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
