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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:26:04 PM UTC-7 David Roe wrote: > My understanding from the > allowing-changes-to-a-pull-request-branch-created-from-a-fork > documentation >

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

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 6:36 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 13 Sep 2022, 23:03 Matthias Koeppe, > wrote: > >> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:01:14 PM UTC-7 Thierry >> (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote: >> >>> Also, several people have already explicitely requested for a break

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

On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 19:43:32 UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 7:15:10 PM UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote: > >> What I was not able to find, though, was the equivalent of "git trac >> push", which can sometimes be very convenient for making a small friendly >>

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

My understanding from the allowing-changes-to-a-pull-request-branch-created-from-a-fork documentation is that only users who have push

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 2:33:07 AM UTC-7 tobias...@gmail.com wrote: > Yes, having "issues" and "pull requests" separated is a huge change to the > way things are handled on trac. Naturally there are advantages and > disadvantages for both approaches. In the github world, issues are

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 7:15:10 PM UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote: > On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 14:04:24 UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > >> git-trac's functionality is provided by cli, a command line tool ftom >> GitHub, so this is all covered (except parts of git-trac only used by >>

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 7:15:10 PM UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote: > > Perhaps it's nice to address how to "make a friendly amendment" to someone > else's "pr" or "issue", or how to collaborate on tickets/issues/pr's . In > my work on trac tickets that happened quite a bit and "git trac >

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 7:15:10 PM UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote: > What I was not able to find, though, was the equivalent of "git trac > push", which can sometimes be very convenient for making a small friendly > amendment to a proposed change. I would not expect to be able to push to >

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

On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 14:04:24 UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Sep 2022, 21:56 Nils Bruin, wrote: > >> I'd actually be interested in knowing what the substitute for "git trac >> checkout ..." is. Because with trac, all ticket branches are present in the >> "trac"

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

On Tue, 13 Sep 2022, 23:03 Matthias Koeppe, wrote: > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:01:14 PM UTC-7 Thierry > (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote: > >> Also, several people have already explicitely requested for a break (if >> not a truce, given the level of agressivity). > > > Excuse me, Thierry,

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:01:14 PM UTC-7 Thierry (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote: > given the conditions and how they affect my mental health, > Taking care of one's mental health is very important, and I do hope that you'll be able to cope. It is an individual's responsibility to take

Re: [sage-devel] Re: make error

Now it worked, thanks! I forgot the „source /…/.homebrew-build-env command. Thank you for the help! John H Palmieri schrieb am Di. 13. Sept. 2022 um 21:45: > Have you tried the suggestion printed at the end of `./configure`, namely > > % brew install ecl fplll freetype gsl gd mpfi nauty

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:01:14 PM UTC-7 Thierry (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote: > Also, several people have already explicitely requested for a break (if > not a truce, given the level of agressivity). Excuse me, Thierry, your accusations about others being aggressive & likening

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

Hi, On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 01:30:05AM -0400, David Roe wrote: > 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 >

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

On Tue, 13 Sep 2022, 21:56 Nils Bruin, wrote: > I'd actually be interested in knowing what the substitute for "git trac > checkout ..." is. Because with trac, all ticket branches are present in the > "trac" repository, you can pull anything from there. If I have to > merge/pull from developer

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

I'd actually be interested in knowing what the substitute for "git trac checkout ..." is. Because with trac, all ticket branches are present in the "trac" repository, you can pull anything from there. If I have to merge/pull from developer branch, do I need to add another remote to my local

[sage-devel] Re: make error

Have you tried the suggestion printed at the end of `./configure`, namely % brew install ecl fplll freetype gsl gd mpfi nauty openblas python3 qhull r singular suite-sparse zeromq and then % source /Users/janvorloeper/sage/.homebrew-build-env and then run `./configure` again? The log file

[sage-devel] Re: A list of file with deprecation

Oups, yes exactly!  Best. David A. Le mardi 13 septembre 2022 à 13:16:51 UTC-4, Marc Mezzarobba a écrit : > David Ayotte wrote: > > ~/sage$ git describe --contains $(git log --author=rel...@sagemath.org > ^^ > Could it be that whatever you are using to read sage-devel censors email >

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

I have no opinions about what B_1 should be, but I am concerned about potential confusion: some users will expect one value for B_1, others will expect a different value, and so one group or other will end up being confused when answers don't come out the way they expect. The safest course

[sage-devel] Operation PR²: Let's edit https://www.sagemath.org/development-ack.html

Let's send some Pull Requests to improve our Public Relations: Our web page https://www.sagemath.org/development-ack.html needs your help! If you - organized or participated in SageDays at a supporting institution, - received research funding that you used in part for Sage development - are

[sage-devel] Re: A list of file with deprecation

David Ayotte wrote: > ~/sage$ git describe --contains $(git log --author=rel...@sagemath.org ^^ Could it be that whatever you are using to read sage-devel censors email addresses and that you copy-pasted the censored version of release at

[sage-devel] Re: A list of file with deprecation

Thanks to you both Vincent and Marc. @Marc: Yes I mainly only want the first Sage version that includes the ticket, in order to be able to evaluate how long the depreciation have been in effect. The command you wrote returns an error: ~/sage$ git describe --contains $(git log

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

I've added this to https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/migration-from-trac-to-Git**b#proposed-workflow-on-github-with-transition-guide-from-trac now. On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:05:48 AM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:36:18 PM UTC+9 Matthias

[sage-devel] Re: A list of file with deprecation

David Ayotte wrote: > I have a question: given a trac ticket number, is there a way of > recover the "Merge In" field of the ticket with the command line? I'd > like to automatically add this info to the list. In case they differ, do you want the contents of this field as it appears on trac, or

Re: [sage-devel] A list of file with deprecation

> I have a question: given a trac ticket number, is there a way of recover the > "Merge In" field of the ticket with the command line? I'd like to > automatically add this info to the list. For that purpose, the git trac command line tool is very helpful ``` $ git trac find

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

Many thanks to all who have already sent their PR! https://github.com/sagemath/website/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 5:12:33 AM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > Dear Sage developers (current and past): > > The SageMath developer map

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:03:36 AM UTC-7 kcrisman wrote: > > Consensus ?! Hmm - consensus means that everyone is for. I don't think >> we will have it. So we can stop now, no? I think a simple majority is a >> meaningful way to vote here. >> > > Also, given the level of activity

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

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 6:25 AM TB wrote: > Somewhere in this thread, or in a related thread, the trac backups were > mentioned. It reminded me of the the incident > https://www.asmeurer.com/blog/posts/the-sympy-hackerrank-dmca-incident/ > where SymPy was wrongfully accused of a copyright

[sage-devel] A list of file with deprecation

Hello, In order to lighten up the atmosphere from github migration and "+1/2", I wrote a small script that search through $SAGE_SRC and looks if one of the following three functions is called: 1. deprecated_function_alias 2. deprecation 3. deprecation_cython (See this

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

First, I would like to thank all past, present and future maintainers of the SageMath infrastructure. This is a hard job, which is not always acknowledged. Somewhere in this thread, or in a related thread, the trac backups were mentioned. It reminded me

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

On Tue, 13 Sept 2022, 17:00 David Joyner, wrote: > Let's play nice here, okay? Let me explain what I mean in a nicer way. Not defining B_1 looks good on the surface given the current discussion, but is really a strictly worse option than defining B_1 = +½ or -½ because then the n = 1 case has

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

> > Consensus ?! Hmm - consensus means that everyone is for. I don't think > we will have it. So we can stop now, no? I think a simple majority is a > meaningful way to vote here. > Also, given the level of activity here, a separate thread for voting on this (whenever that becomes

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

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

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:35 AM Oscar Benjamin wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Sept 2022 at 22:09, Fredrik Johansson > wrote: > > > > The claim "bernoulli_plus admits a natural generalisation to real and > > complex numbers but bernoulli_minus does not" (made elsewhere in this > > thread) seems a bit

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

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:43 AM Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > > Le mardi 13 septembre 2022 à 07:30:23 UTC+2, David Roe a écrit : >> >> >> Here's a proposal on a timeline for making a decision (I welcome feedback >> from anyone who thinks this is too fast or too slow). >> >> * We spend another few

Re: [sage-devel] nauty_gentourng is not available

Hi! > It looks that QA of Fedora packages is a part of your job now, right? Not really, I haven't been involved with that at all. > which is an optional pari package Fedora does not provide for some reason. Is there an issue filed about this (with fedora)? Not sure how responsive they are, but

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

On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 6:27 PM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > 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

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

Le mardi 13 septembre 2022 à 07:30:23 UTC+2, David Roe a écrit : > > Here's a proposal on a timeline for making a decision (I welcome feedback > from anyone who thinks this is too fast or too slow). > > * We spend another few days discussing pros and cons and refining the > proposed workflows.

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

On Mon, 12 Sept 2022 at 22:09, Fredrik Johansson wrote: > > The claim "bernoulli_plus admits a natural generalisation to real and complex > numbers but bernoulli_minus does not" (made elsewhere in this thread) seems a > bit hyperbolic. For B+ this natural generalization is -n*zeta(1-n); for B-

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

Yes, having "issues" and "pull requests" separated is a huge change to the way things are handled on trac. Naturally there are advantages and disadvantages for both approaches. In the github world, issues are treated more as a list of open tasks and are usually more user-focused. For example,

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

Matthias, people have their own workflows that evolved around using trac for a long time. It is only natural that there are now questions of how these workflows will look like when using github. We should give space to such questions following the spirit of "there are no stupid questions".

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

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 3:43 AM Jeremy Tan wrote: > > A simpleton's way of getting out of the problem indeed. PARI/GP's > documentation says: > Let's play nice here, okay? > ? ?bernvec > bernvec(n): returns a vector containing, as rational numbers, the Bernoulli > numbers B_0, B_2, ...,

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

All, let's please not expand the discussion of exotic workflows. Sharing files, sharing branches etc. is a solved problem, with multiple easy solutions. This is not 2005 any more, when having an SVN server was the gold standard to sharing & versioning files. On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at

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

On Tue, 13 Sep 2022, 08:57 'Travis Scrimshaw' via sage-devel, < sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:14:26 PM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > >> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:10:28 AM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw >> wrote: >> >>> How is the workflow that our

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

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 3:57 AM 'Travis Scrimshaw' via sage-devel < sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:14:26 PM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > >> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:10:28 AM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw >> wrote: >> >>> How is the workflow that

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:57:47 AM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > With our current setup, I could push the branch to the server, email you > the branch name, and you could pull it. > So you're discussing a use case of the trac git server to share a branch that has nothing to do

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:14:26 PM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:10:28 AM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > >> How is the workflow that our current developers sometimes use irrelevant? >>> Granted, this is a less used feature, but I believe it makes

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

A simpleton's way of getting out of the problem indeed. PARI/GP's documentation says: ? ?bernvec bernvec(n): returns a vector containing, as rational numbers, the Bernoulli numbers B_0, B_2, ..., B_{2n}. ? bernfrac(3) %2 = 0 ? bernfrac(5) %3 = 0 So not only B_1 but also B_3, B_5, etc. have

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:02:19 AM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > From a number of trac tickets (mainly #30363) and the GitHub UN link > thread coming across more as a demand to me with the imposed deadline, it > gave off this impression. > Can't criticize both lack of a plan &

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

On Tue, 13 Sep 2022, 04:39 'Travis Scrimshaw' via sage-devel, < sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: > 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

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:10:28 AM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > How is the workflow that our current developers sometimes use irrelevant? >> Granted, this is a less used feature, but I believe it makes it harder to >> share branches privately. It has been useful for me in the past

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:30:19 PM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:25:57 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > >> whereas with trac, things are highly concentrated on tickets, which are a single point of reference. Using the GH/GL model, we have

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:36:18 PM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:36:06 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > >> Last I remember, using https instead of ssh meant I had to input my UN/PW >> every time I did a push or a pull >> > > >

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

PARI/GP actually has a better convention : only even Bernoulli numbers exist ? bernvec(5) %1 = [1, 1/6, -1/30, 1/42, -1/30, 5/66] And the two conventions can be recovered as evaluations of Bernoulli polynomials at 0 and 1 respectively ? [subst(bernpol(n), x, 0) | n <- [1..6]] %2 = [-1/2, 1/6,

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:42:58 PM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:30:39 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > >> Please, Travis, the high activity that you see here is in response to the >>> requests for having a fleshed out plan before a discussion

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

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:30:23 PM UTC-7 David Roe wrote: > Here's a proposal on a timeline for making a decision (I welcome feedback > from anyone who thinks this is too fast or too slow). > > * We spend another few days discussing pros and cons and refining the > proposed workflows.

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

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:30:39 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > Please, Travis, the high activity that you see here is in response to the >> requests for having a fleshed out plan before a discussion can even happen. >> So we fleshed out the plan. >>

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

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:36:06 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > Last I remember, using https instead of ssh meant I had to input my UN/PW > every time I did a push or a pull > https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/getting-started-with-git/caching-your-github-credentials-in-git

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

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:25:57 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > whereas with trac, things are highly concentrated on tickets, which are a >>> single point of reference. Using the GH/GL model, we have all of these forks >>> >> >> Irrelevant because in the proposed workflow you never