#9433: Put more files under revision control.
--------------------------------------------+-------------------------------
Reporter: jhpalmieri | Owner: tbd
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.6.2
Component: distribution | Keywords:
Author: John Palmieri | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: Leif Leonhardy, Volker Braun | Merged:
Work_issues: |
--------------------------------------------+-------------------------------
Changes (by jdemeyer):
* status: needs_review => needs_work
Comment:
Replying to [comment:92 vbraun]:
> Replying to [comment:88 jdemeyer]:
> > Why do we need a {{{sage_root.spkg}}}? I don't see a reason for a
"root repo" to ever exist in tarball form.
>
> The way things are set up right now, if you upgrade an existing sage
installation then the updated `SAGE_ROOT_REPO` will merge updates to the
`$SAGE_ROOT` repository. As long as we don't have an official online
repository to pull changes from I don't see any better way to do the
upgrade.
I have to admit I know nothing about this. If you really think we need a
`sage_root.spkg` then I believe you...
> I agree that we need to disentangle the `sage_root` repository more from
`sage_scripts`. Basically, everything that `sage_scripts/spkg-install`
manually copies into `$SAGE_ROOT` should be part of the root repo, like
`README.txt`. But I think this can wait until we actually do have a
`sage_root` repository. Then it'll be easy to write complimentary patches
for the two repositories that clean this up.
Personally, I would rather like to clean this up as part of ''this''
ticket. Keep in mind that adding or changing the working of a SAGE_ROOT
repo will require some changes to the process of merging Sage releases. I
would prefer to have to do this only once, not once for this ticket and
once for every follow-up ticket.
> I'm also totally in favour of merging the spkg/base repo. Since that has
only 26 log entries (with the most recent one from July), I think we can
live without preserving its history. Right now we don't use this
repository during upgrades as far as I know.
>
> If you agree with this then I'll make a followup ticket...
Same answer as before: I prefer to do it in ''this'' ticket.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9433#comment:93>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
