Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> this script goes for a simpler route - it writes GitHub logins (or
> original trac logins for the cases where there is no match) of users
> who commented, etc. into
> comments text. This does not need authorisation from users, but it's
> arguably less nice looking.
Not
That's now https://github.com/sagemath/website/pull/266
(got up to #68, taking a break now)
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 1:53:16 PM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> I am adding the mapping from trac to github usernames to the file
>
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34521
Jeremy Tan / Parcly Taxel
On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 21:50:32 UTC+8 davida...@gmail.com wrote:
> When you open a trac ticket, post the link here, we will continue the
> discussion there.
>
> Le dimanche 11 septembre 2022 à 00:58:07 UTC-4,
I am adding the mapping from trac to github usernames to the file
https://github.com/sagemath/website/blob/master/conf/contributors.xml for
the top 100 developers listed
at https://github.com/sagemath/sage/graphs/contributors
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:32:39 PM UTC-7 Matthias
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:10:42 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022, 18:14 Marc Mezzarobba, wrote:
>
>>
>> How hard would it be to import issues in such a way that issues and
>> comments created by people with git**b accounts are correctly linked to
>> their accounts?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2022, 18:14 Marc Mezzarobba, wrote:
> Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > I've conducted few experiments with a tool to import trac sites to
> > github: https://github.com/svigerske/trac-to-github, which in
> > particular allows to import trac tickets as github issues; a result of
> >
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 10:14:03 AM UTC-7 Marc Mezzarobba wrote:
> Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > I've conducted few experiments with a tool to import trac sites to
> > github: https://github.com/svigerske/trac-to-github, which in
> > particular allows to import trac tickets as github
Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> I've conducted few experiments with a tool to import trac sites to
> github: https://github.com/svigerske/trac-to-github, which in
> particular allows to import trac tickets as github issues; a result of
> running it on few tickets
> may be inspected
> here:
>
Hi Tobias,
Thanks a lot for your edits to the wiki page!
Some comments:
1) In our documentation, we should avoid referring to "origin" as the
remote, because what is "origin" will depend on whether someone cloned the
repo before deciding that they need their own fork. This is why I used
On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 13:56:11 UTC+2 seb@gmail.com wrote:
> I think an explicit description of what will replace the states of a
> ticket (for example positive review) is still missing.
>
PR reviews can either request changes (= "needs work") or approve
(="positive review").
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 4:56:11 AM UTC-7 seb@gmail.com wrote:
> In my opinion, we can also directly drop the develop branch and move to
> the master/main-branch only model. But that’s slightly orthogonal to the
> migration to Github.
>
> I would rather put such suggestions
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 11:32:00 PM UTC-7 j...@aims.ac.za wrote:
> The wiki page is titled gitl**b but the content is about github only, not
> gitlab:
>
> * How would a gitlab workflow work better or worse than github? Especially
> the CI/Actions. Even if the preferred workflow is
When you open a trac ticket, post the link here, we will continue the
discussion there.
Le dimanche 11 septembre 2022 à 00:58:07 UTC-4, redde...@gmail.com a écrit :
> Considering the subsequent replies to my proposal, I'm perfectly happy
> with implementing B_1 = +½ in Sage with the 1-year
Thanks, this is already in a pretty nice shape! I’ve extended some points a
bit.
I think an explicit description of what will replace the states of a ticket
(for example positive review) is still missing.
In my opinion, we can also directly drop the develop branch and move to the
Hi Jakub,
It looks that QA of Fedora packages is a part of your job now, right?
IIRC, we also have problems with pari-gp Fedora
packaging
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/32359
TLDR; system pari's packages don't allow to build gp2c, which is an
optional pari package Fedora does not provide for
On Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 21:32:50 UTC+2 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 8:12:48 AM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
>
>> I've added a draft of a proposed workflow on GitHub with the idea to just
>> follow the Trac workflow.
>> Help is welcome in adding links to
Hi
On Sat, 10 Sept 2022 at 21:32, Matthias Koeppe
wrote:
> A draft of the Trac-to-GitHub transition guide is now available at:
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/migration-from-trac-to-Git**b
>
> Please let me know what's missing or unclear.
>
Thank you for editing that!
The wiki page is
> I appreciate the efforts by Matthias and others to provide a roadmap for
the proposed transition.
+1
Nobody would buy a new house which has not been built yet without a good
animation of how it would look like.
> Is there more than "trac is what we're used to"? Can those who are
opposed
dim...@gmail.com schrieb am Sonntag, 11. September 2022 um 01:36:31 UTC+2:
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022, 00:22 seb@gmail.com, wrote:
>
>> Matthias Koeppe schrieb am Samstag, 10. September 2022 um 21:32:50 UTC+2:
>>
>>> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 8:12:48 AM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe
>>>
19 matches
Mail list logo
