William Stein wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Andrey Novoseltsev <novos...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Tuesday, 26 July 2016 20:13:56 UTC-6, William wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Paul Masson <paulm...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> What about a "packages" repository on GitHub just to store files? >>> >>> I was also going to suggest that. A drawback is we would have to add >>> all trac users to the Github repo, so hundreds and hundreds of people, >>> many probably not even on github right now. So the overhead of a >>> common repo that everyone uses would be prohibitive. >>> >>> Of course, people could just put their own packages in a repo and post >>> a link to that. I assume this was already obvious to Andrey though, >>> and he considers it to be too much of a pain. >>> >>> -- William >>> >> >> Actually, it was not (in my defence I didn't give it much sort). What I used >> to do was copy it to sage.math.washington.edu and post a link (which was >> conveniently wget-able). It was obvious and easy to do. Uploading a file to >> trac would be even easier and more obvious and would not require any extra >> setup/thinking/knowledge on my part. It also would be so obvious, that there >> would be no need to even document it somehow. Any other service/solution >> needs to be explained in the documentation guide and kept up-to-date when >> something changes. >> >> So personally I really really prefer being able to upload bigger files to >> trac directly from the ticket page. What's the point of backing up >> attachments there forever anyway? With mercurial attachments were patches. >> Now I think they tend to be some screenshots or log files or something which >> is not quite as crucial. With disk snapshots there is a fallback and a more >> resilient backup can be concerned only with what people have typed, i.e. the >> code and discussions themselves. Perhaps it is also possible just keep the >> current 2MB limits for picking attachments that have to be backed up in case >> we do care about screenshots. >> > > Great argument.
Indeed. > I think we should increase the attachment limit, > but not backup the big attachments using bup. So here's the current top-9 of our /standard/ packages (>= 10 MB): 86 MB upstream/gcc-4.9.3.tar.bz2 31 MB upstream/jmol-14.2.11_2015.01.20.tar.bz2 29 MB upstream/R-3.2.4-revised.tar.gz 29 MB upstream/maxima-5.35.1.tar.gz 16 MB upstream/python-2.7.10.tar.gz 15 MB upstream/ppl-1.2.tar.bz2 15 MB upstream/matplotlib-1.5.1.tar.bz2 12 MB upstream/scipy-0.17.1.tar.gz 11 MB upstream/Pillow-3.3.0.tar.gz Wondering whether we should delete at least larger binary attachments from trac after some time (not necessarily immediately after a ticket has been merged). -leif -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
