Tue 2018-08-21 08:43:19 UTC, Erik Bray:
> What does everyone think? Is there anyone opposed to going ahead and
> opening up merge requests?
Is the plan to successively reduce the usage of our current trac system
and completely move to gitlab? In that case I would be rather reluctant.
Best
It looks that Magma-related failure is caused by changes in Magma; it could
be a different Magma version
will still be OK. I don't think it should stop #25351 from moving forward.
Someone with Magma ought to open a ticket to fix this, if necessary.
On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 12:04:56 AM
On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 1:36:52 PM UTC+3, Erik Bray wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:21 AM Daniel Krenn >
> wrote:
> >
> > On 08/21/2018 10:43 AM, Erik Bray wrote:
> > > https://gitlab.com/sagemath/sage
> >
> > How do I become a member of the SageMath group (or the project) in
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:05 PM William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:43 AM, Erik Bray wrote:
>
> > Some of you may remember this is not a first for Sage either: some
> > time ago there was a similar experiment done with GitHub, but it fell
> > unmaintained. If anyone has any
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:08 AM Simon King wrote:
>
> Tue 2018-08-21 08:43:19 UTC, Erik Bray:
> > What does everyone think? Is there anyone opposed to going ahead and
> > opening up merge requests?
>
> Is the plan to successively reduce the usage of our current trac system
> and completely move
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 6:47 PM Eric Gourgoulhon wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Le mardi 21 août 2018 10:43:19 UTC+2, Erik Bray a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Why GitLab? In short, we felt it would likely be more acceptable to
>> most members of the Sage community; this was a feeling we had even
>> before the
Hello Jeroen,
I agree that fragmentation can be a problem. Then again, I think that
sometimes splitting discussion on the issue and the discussion on an actual
attempt to solve that issue can be useful; at least it doesn't feel
unnatural to me. Also being able to create a new merge request can
Hi Erik,
On 2018-08-22, Erik Bray wrote:
> Really the workflow is meant to be you create an issue first, and then
> you create one or more pull requests to resolve that issue. I am also
> a fan of being able to "elevate" an issue to a pull request. This is
> possible to do on GitHub through
No, I don't think this is the plan.
Note also that "moving to gitlab" might mean two rather different things (on
the surface they might look similar)
* using gitlab's servers
* self-host gitlab
The latter case this would mean replacing trac, which does not age too well, as
we see, with
On 2018-08-21 10:43, Erik Bray wrote:
A second clarification to make is that we are not currently proposing
to do away with Trac for Sage's ticket database
I find this quite important. I really really really like the Sage Trac
workflow (much more than I like GitHub; I haven't used GitLab so I
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:38 PM Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-21 10:43, Erik Bray wrote:
> > A second clarification to make is that we are not currently proposing
> > to do away with Trac for Sage's ticket database
>
> I find this quite important. I really really really like the Sage Trac
For me, the number 1 thing that our Trac server does better than GitHub
(again, I don't know about GitLab) is that the "branch" field is
mutable: an issue is just a pull request without a branch and I can
change the branch on a pull request to add a reviewer patch (sometimes
it's easier to add
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:58 PM Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> For me, the number 1 thing that our Trac server does better than GitHub
> (again, I don't know about GitLab) is that the "branch" field is
> mutable: an issue is just a pull request without a branch and I can
> change the branch on a pull
On 2018-08-22 21:18, Erik Bray wrote:
But at the same time pull requests are cheap, and there's no harm in
making them.
The harm is that discussion is hard to follow because it's on multiple
pages. Something that regularly happens on the Sage Trac:
1. Somebody creates an issue
2. Somebody
14 matches
Mail list logo
