Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 2:10:12 PM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 8:39:50 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > >> But people nowadays who start with GitHub never have to go through >>> archaic setup steps such as those that we document at >>>

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

> > > What happens when Bob works on a ticket, but then stops (say, it doesn't >> find a reviewer in time). Now Alice wants to make changes on top of that >> branch. How does Alice do that? I am particularly thinking about when this >> is *not* meant to be a PR review commit (say, it is

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 1:39:38 PM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 8:39:50 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > >> First off, we need to slow down significantly as we do not have an >> general clear consensus about doing this move. >> > > Please, Travis,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

While I strongly support the shift to github, I also agree with Travis that we should vote on a change this major, and give the community enough time to weigh in. I would also encourage people on both sides of the debate to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. To those who have been putting

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

> > > The downside (that will always remain to me) with GH/GL is anything with >> their web interface is highly decentralized, >> > > No, no such thing. > The fact that PRs and issues are on two completely different pages is already decentralized. There is no clear single place for

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:13:47 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > >> But people nowadays who start with GitHub never have to go through archaic setup steps such as those that we document at

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

> > > But people nowadays who start with GitHub never have to go through archaic >>> setup steps such as those that we document at >>> https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/trac.html#trac-authentication-through-ssh, >>> >>> which --- even when it is working --- is major friction for the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

> > A few people are yelling >> > > Travis, this is inappropriate > > Matthias, then let me rephrase, a few people are speaking somewhat forcefully and frequently. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 8:39:50 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > But people nowadays who start with GitHub never have to go through archaic >> setup steps such as those that we document at >> https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/trac.html#trac-authentication-through-ssh, >>

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 8:39:50 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > How do we deal with the PR pollution? > PR numbers are not a scarce resource. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 8:39:50 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > What happens when Bob works on a ticket, but then stops (say, it doesn't > find a reviewer in time). Now Alice wants to make changes on top of that > branch. How does Alice do that? I am particularly thinking about when

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 8:39:50 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > First off, we need to slow down significantly as we do not have an general > clear consensus about doing this move. > Please, Travis, the high activity that you see here is in response to the requests for having a

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 8:39:50 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > The downside (that will always remain to me) with GH/GL is anything with > their web interface is highly decentralized, > No, no such thing. > whereas with trac, things are highly concentrated on tickets, which are

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 8:39:50 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > But people nowadays who start with GitHub never have to go through archaic >> setup steps such as those that we document at >> https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/trac.html#trac-authentication-through-ssh, >>

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 8:39:50 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > A few people are yelling > Travis, this is inappropriate -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

First off, we need to slow down significantly as we do not have an general clear consensus about doing this move. A few people are yelling we should move to GH, and a lot of the same people are acting like has been decided when it has not. We should make a formal vote once a more concrete

[sage-devel] Re: On changing Bernoulli(1) to +½

On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 10:00:20 UTC+8 edgardi...@gmail.com wrote: > The choice of the sign is arbitrary. So why make this change? What is the > benefit? > Most recent papers, algebra systems > (Maple/Mathematica/Magma/Matlab/Oscar), and libraries > (Pari/Flint/Mpmath/ARB) seemed to

Re: [sage-devel] Re: On changing Bernoulli(1) to +½

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 7:00 PM edgardi...@gmail.com wrote: > > The choice of the sign is arbitrary. So why make this change? What is the > benefit? The answer to that question is what the website http://luschny.de/math/zeta/The-Bernoulli-Manifesto.html is all about. I think you have to read

[sage-devel] Re: On changing Bernoulli(1) to +½

The choice of the sign is arbitrary. So why make this change? What is the benefit? Most recent papers, algebra systems (Maple/Mathematica/Magma/Matlab/Oscar), and libraries (Pari/Flint/Mpmath/ARB) seemed to have picked B_1 = -1/2. Thus why put work into changing the default value and go against

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

It does read very nicely, good job! On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 22:10:30 UTC+2 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 12:07:13 AM UTC-7 tobias...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> If you first cloned the main repo and then decide to fork, the common >> approach is to rename the

[sage-devel] Re: On changing Bernoulli(1) to +½

I'm pretty neutral about this change, but I've received PRs for FLINT and mpmath (presumably there will be one for Arb as well) so I suppose I will need to make a decision about merging or closing them sooner or later :-) The sign convention for B_1 is fairly arbitrary, and the downside of

Re: [sage-devel] Please add your GitHub account name to the SageMath contributor info

It appears my info was all correct already. I removed my info from the trac landing page. I notice there is some confusion in what the label "work" means. Some people put their position rather than their institution. I don't think that's a big deal but if that's you :) you can fix that too.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 12:07:13 AM UTC-7 tobias...@gmail.com wrote: > If you first cloned the main repo and then decide to fork, the common > approach is to rename the origin remote to upstream and introduce a new > origin pointing to the fork. The gh cli is doing this automatically,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 7:39:10 AM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > [] There are lots of technical issues and questions I have that [I >> cannot] easily find after skimming through things for a few minutes. >> > Everything about GitHub has excellent documentation, and we have

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 2:54:06 AM UTC-7 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

Re: [sage-devel] On changing Bernoulli(1) to +½

> Has FLINT been changed? I see a PR here but it is still open You're totally right. I thought that it was already closed there! Thanks for pointing this out. Note that I don't have a very strong opinion on this matter, I'm only worrying about preventing potential bugs. David A. Le lundi

Re: [sage-devel] On changing Bernoulli(1) to +½

On Mon, 12 Sept 2022 at 16:24, davida...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Why don't we create a B+ and a B-? > > This was one of the idea of the ticket > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34521. A new option to the bernoulli > function was added ("plus=False"), giving the option to the user to choose >

Re: [sage-devel] On changing Bernoulli(1) to +½

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 11:24 AM davida...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Why don't we create a B+ and a B-? > > This was one of the idea of the ticket > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34521. A new option to the bernoulli > function was added ("plus=False"), giving the option to the user to choose

Re: [sage-devel] On changing Bernoulli(1) to +½

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 9:49 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 2:21 PM Jeremy Tan wrote: > > > > Perhaps I need your help, William. The associated trac ticket > > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34521 was marked invalid offhand by the > > release manager Frédéric Chapoton

Re: [sage-devel] Please add your GitHub account name to the SageMath contributor info

Sent a PR there too! On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 20:28:08 UTC+8 David Joyner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 8:12 AM Matthias Koeppe > wrote: > > > > Dear Sage developers (current and past): > > > > The SageMath developer map ( > https://www.sagemath.org/development-map.html) needs your

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 5:41:48 AM UTC-7 Sébastien Labbé wrote: > The urgency of short term issues does not imply the urgency of long term > issues. > The short term issues (brokenness of Trac) happened because the long term issues (unsustainability of Trac, both in technical tems and

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 5:41:48 AM UTC-7 Sébastien Labbé wrote: > So I need clear arguments for the change to anything else. > Please read https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30363, which summarizes & links to what has been said in this thread over the years. -- You received this

Re: [sage-devel] On changing Bernoulli(1) to +½

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 2:21 PM Jeremy Tan wrote: > > Perhaps I need your help, William. The associated trac ticket > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34521 was marked invalid offhand by the > release manager Frédéric Chapoton despite me managing to fix all the doctests > simply and the ticket

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 7:19:48 PM UTC+2 John H Palmieri wrote: > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 12:08:38 PM UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > Dima, these kinds of personal remarks/attacks are completely inappropriate. > Please stop. > > -- > John > +1 on the please stop I am

Re: [sage-devel] Please add your GitHub account name to the SageMath contributor info

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 8:12 AM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > Dear Sage developers (current and past): > > The SageMath developer map (https://www.sagemath.org/development-map.html) > needs your updated information. > > In particular, motivated by the proposed migration from Trac to GitHub >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 3:10:54 AM UTC-7 Kwankyu Lee wrote: > According to > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30406#comment:15 > trac continues to be running after migration to keep links to trac alive. > > Then do we really need to migrate (copy) tickets to github once and for > all?

[sage-devel] Please add your GitHub account name to the SageMath contributor info

Dear Sage developers (current and past): The SageMath developer map (https://www.sagemath.org/development-map.html) needs your updated information. In particular, motivated by the proposed migration from Trac to GitHub Issues/PRs (https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30363), we will need your

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 11:24 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 11:10 AM Kwankyu Lee wrote: > > > > According to > > > > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30406#comment:15 > > > > trac continues to be running after migration to keep links to trac alive. > > > > Then do we

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 11:10 AM Kwankyu Lee wrote: > > According to > > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30406#comment:15 > > trac continues to be running after migration to keep links to trac alive. > > Then do we really need to migrate (copy) tickets to github once and for all? > I guess that

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Re: Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 6:53 AM Marc Mezzarobba wrote: > > 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

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

According to https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30406#comment:15 trac continues to be running after migration to keep links to trac alive. Then do we really need to migrate (copy) tickets to github once and for all? I guess that the migrated tickets would be full of broken links internal or

Re: [sage-devel] Bug in decomposition_type

Thanks for a swift response. Björn On Friday, 9 September 2022 at 18:41:02 UTC+2 David Roe wrote: > Thanks for the report. There's a fix at #34514 > , needs review. > David > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 5:17 AM Björn Selander wrote: > >> Hi, >> >>

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

As much as I agree with this sentiment and personally dislike the naming "origin/upstream" as well, it is the most widespread naming convention in the fork model. See e.g https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/dev/gitwash/development_setup.html I think its a good idea to stick to the established