Re: [sage-devel] Proposal (redo): Make pytest, pytest_mock, pytest_xdist + dependencies standard packages

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 12:38 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 11:25 PM Matthias Koeppe > wrote: > > > > We added the packages as optional "pip" packages (see > https://deploy-livedoc--sagemath.netlify.app/html/en/developer/packaging#package-types > for the terminology), each

Re: [sage-devel] Re: approve github actions

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 9:13 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > On 14 May 2024 22:55:01 BST, "julian...@fsfe.org" > wrote: > >I granted "write" permissions to you. That seems to be the required > >permission to approve workflow runs. > > IIRC, such permissions are automatic for the members of

Re: [sage-devel] wasm

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 3:29 AM 'Doris Behrendt' via sage-devel < sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > My team is about to develop a webapp where we want to factor polynomials > with coefficients in ZZ. > We want to offer a dropdown menu where the user can select the base ring > and

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Revert merged PR with unreviewed dependencies

t;> >>> -1 >>> >>> If something has been done that should be undone, I very much trust >>> Volker to take care of it when he can, without the need for endless >>> time-consuming discussions and votes. >>> >>> Best, >>> >&g

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: Revert merged PR with unreviewed dependencies

0:47:36 AM UTC-7 David Roe wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 1:43 PM Matthias Koeppe >> wrote: >> >>> I will first note that the title of this post is misleading. >>> Everything that was merged has been reviewed -- as noted, many months >>> ago.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: Revert merged PR with unreviewed dependencies

efinition, #36951 and #36676 did not have positive review at the time that #36964 was merged. David On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 8:54:26 AM UTC-7 David Roe wrote: > >> Hi all, >> Sage has had a review process for over 15 years, but a combination of >> recent changes

[sage-devel] VOTE: Revert merged PR with unreviewed dependencies

Hi all, Sage has had a review process for over 15 years, but a combination of recent changes has led to the merging of a PR into sage-10.4.beta3 of a change (#36964 ) that I believe should not (yet) have been merged. In #37796

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Proposal (redo): Make python_build (and its dependency pyproject_hooks) a standard package

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 5:50 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 10:01 PM François Bissey > wrote: > >> >> >> On 16/04/24 04:41, kcrisman wrote: >> > SageMath has several other long-term contributors who also package >> > software. We're all roughly on the same page

Re: [sage-devel] (Re-)building an inclusive SageMath community. II: Recognizing and fighting abuse, bullying, disrespect

the community is currently falling short, even if you do not have specific solutions. The Sage Code of Conduct Committee David Roe J-P Labbe John Palmieri Julian Rüth Nils Bruin Viviane Pons On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 4:11 PM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > Trigger Warning: In this post, I will discuss top

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

We have received messages from several people that the level of discord on display between Dima and Matthias makes them feel uncomfortable participating on this email list. To protect the community from this acrimony, we are for now restricting Dima and Matthias to moderated contributions on

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Vote: changes to Sage's Code of Conduct

+1. On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 4:09 PM 'Martin R' via sage-devel < sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: > +1 > > I just re-read the whole thing, and I'm quite impressed! Thank you! > > On Thursday 21 March 2024 at 19:03:34 UTC+1 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > >> +1. >> >> On Thursday, March 21, 2024 at

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

This vote has passed, and I've added a "CI Fix" label on github. I am not going to have time to implement changes to our CI infrastructure in the near future, but others are welcome to do so. David On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 1:37 PM

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Vote: Sage Code of Conduct

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:10 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > It's very important to note that with multiwinner approval voting, merely > counting the votes per candidate and picking the top ones can lead to > rather unfair results > (unlike in the single winner case). > > For instance, if we elect

Re: [sage-devel] "Disputed" PRs: Please vote, it matters

I will echo Matthias here. We just spent multiple months working out this new process. In order to make it work, people need to help make judgements about which of these PRs should proceed and be included in Sage. I understand that participating in these particular PRs can be daunting: the

[sage-devel] Re: Vote: Sage Code of Conduct

(vivianep...@gmail.com, VivianePons on github) David Roe (roed.m...@gmail.com, roed314 on github) Julian Rüth (julian.ru...@fsfe.org, saraedum on github) Thank you to everyone for voting! I also want to thank Vincent Delecroix, David Joyner, Harald Schilly, and William Stein for their service

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

Sorry for the delay in responding; I have had much time today. The code of conduct committee's intention in changing the status on some of the disputed tickets was to note ways in which participants had not followed our previous standards for setting review status. At this point, given the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

The vote has passed. There are currently 36 open disputed PRs . Given the extensive comments on some of these PRs, I would agree that we should follow some version of Karl-Dieter's suggestion. In particular, while the author of the PR remains

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Help and Advice | Arithmetic of Jacobians in the Split/Real Model is Broken

There is also this old trac ticket about implementing fast arithmetic in genus 2 Jacobians, which never made it into Sage. I've CCed Mike Jabobson, who worked on it. David On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 12:10 PM Giacomo Pope wrote: > Thank you for

Re: [sage-devel] Google Season of Docs – org application deadline April 2

rewrite it properly (yes, I will >> create an issue for this soon!) >> >> John >> >> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 at 15:03, David Roe wrote: >> >>> I think this would be good for Sage. I think there are several >>> decisions to be made: >>> * What a

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

these kinds of guidelines are better put in our reviewing code rather than the Code of Conduct, since they feel more like details than guiding principles. David > David Roe schrieb am Sonntag, 10. März 2024 um 16:44:06 UTC+1: > >> I agree with both Tobias and Matthias that we should hav

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Application for NumFOCUS affiliation of SageMath

I support Matthias' initiative to join NumFocus. Looking at the application , there are only a few todo items: * Describe the shared history with Cython and IPython. This doesn't need to be extensive, but would be useful. * If we update the code of

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

I agree with both Tobias and Matthias that we should have a discussion about the roles of maintainers (since they have defined privileges on github) and changes to Sage's governance model more generally. Martin and Tobias have commented on trying to include some additional principles into the

Re: [sage-devel] Google Season of Docs – org application deadline April 2

I think this would be good for Sage. I think there are several decisions to be made: * What are our most pressing documentation needs? Personally, I think we have a gap between the reference manual (which is extensive but has no flow) and the thematic tutorials (which are written to tell a story

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Labels and Reviewing

Dear Sage developers, Dima is correct that there are several developers who have blocked each other. The Sage Code of Conduct Committee is aware of several cases and is working on resolving them. We believe both that the presence of these blocks is harming the Sage project, and that it can be

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Labels and Reviewing

e.g. we have a plenty of outstanding symbolic integration bugs). > That is, unless it's absolutely Earth-shuttering, don't use "blocker". > > Dima > > >> >> On Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 6:08:20 AM UTC David Roe wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 28,

[sage-devel] Vote: Sage Code of Conduct

ippela...@gmail.com, jplab on github) John Palmieri (jhpalmier...@gmail.com, jhpalmieri on github) Viviane Pons (vivianep...@gmail.com, VivianePons on github) David Roe (roed.m...@gmail.com, roed314 on github) Julian Rüth (julian.ru...@fsfe.org, saraedum on github) William Stein (wst...@gmail.com, willia

Re: [sage-devel] Looking for volunteers

We've received several nominations, but if you have been on the fence about suggesting someone I encourage you to write to us. The nomination period will close tomorrow night. David On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:52 AM David Roe wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:51 AM Dima Pasechn

[sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks: in PR #37428 , in this thread and then in this thread . It is

[sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

With no further discussion on this thread , I'm calling a vote on a new process for resolving disagreements on a PR. *Proposal* It is now allowed to vote on disputed PRs directly on Github rather than bringing them to sage-devel. Working

Re: [sage-devel] Permissions on github

As far as I can tell, you need some kind of admin privileges in order to add people to Triage (which is unfortunate, since membership in this team is critical for our reviewing process). The method that I use is to go here and click on the big green

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

Thank you for starting the conversation Martin. I certainly think that all of these suggestions are appropriate to discuss, and that sage-devel is probably a better venue for discussion like this than the PR. On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 5:49 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel < sage-devel@googlegroups.com>

Re: [sage-devel] Looking for volunteers

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:51 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> We propose the following voting system. >> 1. A nomination period of 1 week, where any Sage developer can nominate >> someone to serve on the committee by emailing sage-ab...@googlegroups.com. >> You are allowed to nominate yourself

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Labels and Reviewing

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 1:01 AM Kwankyu Lee wrote: > Thank you for making progress on these urgent issues. I suggest the > following: > > 1. Open two other new threads, each of which is for voting on each > proposal. > 2. On a proposal, it should be clear that *a positive vote (+1) is for > the

[sage-devel] Labels and Reviewing

Dear Sage developers, The conflicts we've seen in the last several months are multifaceted, but one of the central issues at hand is how we decide what code is incorporated into Sage through our review process. I have two goals for this thread: to describe our current standards (as codified in

[sage-devel] Looking for volunteers

...@googlegroups.com. I announced the membership of this committee a few days ago in another thread; since then one member has resigned and another has expressed willingness to be replaced. The current membership is William Stein John Palmieri David Roe Vincent Delecroix David Joyner As a group, we believe

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Unload "blocker" label

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 8:06 PM John H Palmieri wrote: > I think that usage (1) is the correct use of "blocker," and usage (3) is > not. Usage (2) should have a new name, as Vincent proposes. Failing that, > this new use of "blocker" must be documented in >

Re: [sage-devel] Bug in finding generators of elliptic curves over a quadratic domain

The problem is in the definition of avoid. There was an assumption made that the discriminant would be integral, so any(q.divides(m) for m in avoid) has avoid = [1048576/5764801, 8, 28, 49, 7] If you change the definition of avoid from avoid = [self._N, self._D] + [P[0].denominator_ideal().norm()

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Disputed Pull Requests / Role Sage-Abuse and the Code of Conduct

confirm that the google group list does receive messages. > And if so, may we know who's on the committee? > > Asking on behalf of the community. > The members of the committee are: * William Stein * Vincent Delecroix * David Joyner * Harald Schilly * John Palmieri * David Roe The membe

Re: [sage-devel] Unify error for trying to invert non-invertible elements

On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 8:18 PM 'Travis Scrimshaw' via sage-devel < sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: > For RuntimeError, I would make it sound like it tells you there is serious > error occurring as it doesn't fall into any other error categories. This > actually makes it the opposite of a

Re: [sage-devel] Unify error for trying to invert non-invertible elements

I agree that there are cases that shouldn't be changed to an ArithmeticError, and that grepping for "invertible" isn't sufficient. But I think with a narrower scope this change is a good idea: if the error arises from attempting to invert a non-invertible element of a ring. So +1 from me, with a

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Implementing minimum_generating_set() function

You can lift elements via the quotient map to get representatives of each coset. I'm not sure that this is wrapped in Sage, but using gap directly you have: sage: Pgap = p._libgap_() sage: Ngap = N._libgap_() sage: phi = Pgap.NaturalHomomorphismByNormalSubgroup(Ngap); phi [ (2,3,4,5,6,7) ] -> [

Re: [sage-devel] Application for NumFOCUS affiliation of SageMath

I agree with Dima that 2 days is not enough time to gather feedback. Is there any reason for the quick turnaround time? David P.S. I'm sorry about disappearing from the other thread about disputed PRs. I will try to summarize the discussion on that thread and call for a vote shortly. On Sat,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Policy for disputed PRs: discussion

Let's try to focus on the policy proposal, rather than specific disagreements on individual PRs. Dima, I'm sorry that you're feeling frustrated with the whole process. It may be helpful to have additional directions about the overall strategy for Sage's build system, but that's better put off to

[sage-devel] Policy for disputed PRs: discussion

Hi all, I'm writing about an issue that I think is causing substantial harm to the Sage community: the only current mechanism we have for resolving a disagreement is to call a vote on this email list. There are certainly times where this is an appropriate response, and I think it's still

Re: [sage-devel] Re: gcc problems on MacOS

6: note: expanded from here > GCC error "'fmpz_poly_scalar_mul_mpz' is deprecated. Use > 'fmpz_poly_scalar_mul_fmpz' instead." > ^ > > Your config.log says that you are using flint from SPKG. Above refers to a > FLINT installation in /usr/local, likely incompatible

[sage-devel] gcc problems on MacOS

I'm trying to build Sage 10.2.rc4 on MacOS 13.3.1 and have been running into multiple errors, some possibly due to Apple upgrading my OS when my laptop went in for repair. I've managed to get past all of Sage's dependencies, and am currently stuck on an error in sagelib: g++ -std=gnu++11

Re: [sage-devel] Pillow built without jpeg support in Sage 10.2.rc3

I'm not aware of why we were suppressing jpeg support before, but this sounds like a good idea to me. David On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 9:48 AM Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > Hi All, > > Pillow provides the Python Imaging Library (PIL) > https://pillow.readthedocs.io/en/stable/ > and is a standard

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Issue with orders in number fields

If you want the order generated by a, you can do sage: K.=NumberField(x^2-10) sage: OK=K.maximal_order() sage: O = K.order(a) sage: O.index_in(OK) 1 Note that this correctly fails in Nils' example: sage: K.order(a^2) ... ValueError: the rank of the span of gens is wrong David On Thu, Sep 7,

Re: [sage-devel] How to make call to latex() not evaluate its content again?

Even if adding some assumptions makes this particular integral evaluate fully, the underlying problem may still show up in other cases. I haven't tracked it down fully (and probably won't spend more time on this), but the error messages are coming from Sage's interface to Giac, via this function

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Voting: Block-scoped optional tag and the keyword

I vote for (A) On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 5:13 AM Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > I vote for (A) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to

Re: [sage-devel] ping - please cast you vote: VOTE: Follow NEP 29: Recommended Python version

Thanks for restarting the discussion Tobias. From my perspective, there are several things that can move this conversation forward. 1. More clarity on how NEP-29 will be implemented in Sage. In particular, that policy just guarantees a particular time frame during which Python *will* be

Re: [sage-devel] Modularization project: V. The blocs

How do you handle files that depend on multiple libraries (like both FLINT and NTL for example)? Are these only included in sagemath-standard? David On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 2:19 PM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:07:36 AM UTC-7 David Roe wrote: > >

Re: [sage-devel] Modularization project: V. The blocs

I assume that the MANIFEST.in.m4 file contains a list of what's in each package, right? There's also sagemath-objects and sagemath-categories (are there any others?); can you send analogous links for those so that we can understand how the library is being broken up into pieces? Is every file

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Why matrix powers are slower over Integers(p) than in ZZ?

The problem is that Sage doesn't have a specialized type for integers mod N: sage: type(M3) The best solution would be to create one, but of course that's a lot of work. Another possibility would be to change the __pow__ method for integer matrices to not ignore the modulus argument. As a

Re: [sage-devel] Re: ping - please cast you vote: VOTE: Follow NEP 29: Recommended Python version

I will delete any messages to this thread in the next week. I encourage people who have not yet engaged to think about the issue and see if they have a compromise to suggest. David On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 5:24 PM G. M.-S. wrote: > > Hi all. > > I would like to ask for a moratorium of at least

Re: [sage-devel] cysignals/sig_on...sig_off

atics interaction with the desired > organization "Oppia" within Web category. > > > > Let me know if you all sage developers want further information > regarding myself to search my result. > > Why are you spamming this group by posting several copi

Re: [sage-devel] cysignals/sig_on...sig_off

On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 10:49 AM 'jonatha...@googlemail.com' via sage-devel wrote: > Does cysignals get enough support to keep going or do we want to try a > different approach? This different approach will for sure not be as > efficient, but will probably need less effort to maintain. >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Sage 10.0.rc0 released

I'm sorry to have prompted another flame war, but please keep the tone polite Dima and Matthias. I know that you're both frustrated at this issue being unresolved, but it's not appropriate to have a fight like this that goes to 2570 different people's inboxes, with frequent emails sniping at each

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Sage 10.0.rc0 released

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 6:41 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > PS. I think openssl spkg should just be removed from Sage, it serves > no purpose as far as I can tell. > For a long time it was very important for getting a functional Sage on MacOS; is that no longer the case? David > > On Wed, Apr 26,

Re: [sage-devel] RealField isn't doing it right

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 8:15 PM aw wrote: > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:19:45 PM UTC-6 Nils Bruin wrote: > > > It may not be the default, but you can still have it! As referenced > before, just execute upon startup: > > old_RealNumber=RealNumber > def RealNumber(*args, **kwargs): >

Re: [sage-devel] RealField isn't doing it right

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 8:06 PM aw wrote: > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:14:41 PM UTC-6 David Roe wrote: > > Did you read my message from last night? I highlighted exactly the > problems with what you're suggesting. > David > > > In that post you outlined some pr

Re: [sage-devel] RealField isn't doing it right

Did you read my message from last night? I highlighted exactly the problems with what you're suggesting. David On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 5:59 PM aw wrote: > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:29:03 PM UTC-6 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > It is a problem, as e^1.1 cannot be represented exactly, and it is

Re: [sage-devel] RealField isn't doing it right

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 7:39 PM aw wrote: > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 4:05:56 PM UTC-6 Nils Bruin wrote: > > But you WON'T be computing with exact quantities in RealField(200) unless > your number can be expressed as +- an unsigned 200-bit integer times a > power of two, so you're very

Re: [sage-devel] RealField isn't doing it right

I agree with William that you should refrain from insulting the Sage developers, especially when the underlying problem comes from your misunderstanding of how floating point arithmetic works. To respond to the content of your message, finite precision real fields in Sage are implemented using

Re: [sage-devel] bug in realfield when passing python integers

I don't think this is a bug that Sage can fix. When you execute RR(8059/9042) in Python, it first evaluates 8059/9042 which produces a float, then passes that to RR. There's no way for RR to know that you initially input a ratio of ints. David On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 4:11 PM aw wrote: > when

Re: [sage-devel] Re: XCode Update creates "C compiler cannot create executables"

I just ran into this error after upgrading to MacOS 13.3. I first started seeing issues with stdio.h being missing, so I tried reinstalling Xcode command line tools. I was then missing complex.h, so I tried reinstalling all of Xcode. Then configure gave me the error described in this thread;

Re: [sage-devel] Adding labels to pull requests?

Hi Enrique, I've added you to the Triage team, so now you can manage labels. David On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 1:33 PM enriqu...@gmail.com wrote: > Actually I have the same problem, I cannot see how to apply labels to PR I > created. Maybe I can't. Thanks, Enrique. > > El jueves, 2 de marzo de 2023

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Adding labels to github issues

> > regards > brett stevens > > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 7:51:40 AM UTC-5 David Roe wrote: > >> Yesterday I manually added a bunch of people that I recognized to the >> sagemath organization triage team >> <https://github.com/orgs/sagemath/teams/

Re: [sage-devel] Procedure to be a member of sage github organization

As a first proposal: once you have a PR accepted then you're added to the sagemath organization. I'm not sure exactly what the cutoff should be for being added to triage (which gives the capability of changing labels, closing and assigning issues and PRs, requesting PR reviews, applying

Re: [sage-devel] Confused about power series ring identity

On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 6:04 AM Nils Bruin wrote: > From "PowerSeriesRing" docstring: > >There is a unique power series ring over each base ring with given >variable name. Two power series over the same base ring with >different variable names are not equal or isomorphic. > > However

Re: [sage-devel] Re: reviewer role on github

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:50 AM Kwankyu Lee wrote: > On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 7:33:51 PM UTC+9 Martin R wrote: > In which repository? > > Here: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues > > Does this mean that researchers cannot become reviewers immediately > anymore? > > You first become

Re: [sage-devel] Re: reviewer role on github

Permission-wise, I think the only required permissions to review are Read permissions, so I don't think it should be technically restricted. David On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:33 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel < sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: > In which repository? > > Does this mean that

Re: [sage-devel] reviewer role on github

I think the interface only allows reviewers for PRs, and not for issues (though you could always make a comment on an issue declaring your intention to review any resulting PR). For PRs, you have a couple options: 1. At the top right of the PR, there's a "Reviewers" box, with a gear icon next to

Re: [sage-devel] Re: New wiki at sagemath/sage hosted by GitHub

Has any content from https://wiki.sagemath.org/ been moved to the github wiki, or is that planned? David On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 2:08 AM Kwankyu Lee wrote: > The url is > > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >

Re: [sage-devel] fetch from draft PR not working

GitHub > <https://github.com/sagemath/trac-to-github/blob/master/docs/Migration-Trac-to-Github.md#issue-with-pr> > instructions? > > thanks > brett > > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 2:54:07 PM UTC-5 David Roe wrote: > >> You probably want >> ```git fetc

Re: [sage-devel] fetch from draft PR not working

You probably want ```git fetch upstream pull/35008/head:covering_array``` Your fork of Sage (origin) doesn't include all of the PRs from the upstream repository. David On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 8:40 PM brettpim wrote: > I have followed the Provisional workflow on GitHub >

Re: [sage-devel] Merging fix for github CI

t;>> >>>> Perhaps that was due to the base branch being so old, that no branch >>>> info on that was computed by GitHub ahead of my fetch. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> > Martin >>>> > On

[sage-devel] Adding labels to github issues

Yesterday I manually added a bunch of people that I recognized to the sagemath organization triage team on github, which gives people the ability to edit labels. I don't intend to exclude any active Sage developers, so if you want to be able to

Re: [sage-devel] Merging fix for github CI

me tags > > #34964 trims some whitespace and changes "" to r""" in a few necessary > places. > > > > On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 18:18, David Roe wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> Currently, almost all of the PRs on github aren't passing CI

[sage-devel] Merging fix for github CI

Hi all, Currently, almost all of the PRs on github aren't passing CI, and thus have red Xs. The problem can be resolved by merging #34964 and #34987 . Several of us

Re: [sage-devel] Creating a github team

y members? (Or is > that against the spirit of open source?) Then, a new contributor would > first ask to become a member, and then would be able to make a PR. > > John > > On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 16:29, Eric Gourgoulhon > wrote: > >> Thanks for your reply. >> >> Le mardi

Re: [sage-devel] Stepping away for a bit

Thank you so much for your work on this transition Matthias! David On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 9:34 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 8:17 PM Matthias Koeppe > wrote: > > > > Dear Sage developers, > > As the migration of the Trac tickets to GitHub issues was completed >

Re: [sage-devel] Creating a github team

On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 10:28 AM Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks again for all the hard work for the github migration! > > I would like to create a team "Manifolds" of https://github.com/sagemath, > with sufficient permissions so that I can add users to it. How shall I > proceed? Are

Re: URGENT: Re: [sage-devel] Jan 30 to Feb 4: Trac downtime, migration to GitHub

I haven't been logged out, and am still able to edit my comments. David On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 3:41 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:38 PM Kwankyu Lee wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 5:15:24 AM UTC+9 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > > that's cause I have to run

Re: URGENT: Re: [sage-devel] Jan 30 to Feb 4: Trac downtime, migration to GitHub

Unfortunately, I was still able to edit the comment. David On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 12:49 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 4:12 PM David Roe wrote: > > > > I am still able to edit comments (see > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/11777#comment:5), but

Re: URGENT: Re: [sage-devel] Jan 30 to Feb 4: Trac downtime, migration to GitHub

I am still able to edit comments (see https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/11777#comment:5), but there doesn't seem to be a way to edit the ticket's overall status. I think this is probably alright, if you're struggling to figure out how to disable editing comments. David On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at

Re: [sage-devel] sage is slowding down PARI/GP by factor x2 (roughly)

It could be related to #31572 , which notes a dramatic speed regression based on pari being compiled with pthread. David On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 3:30 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > I vaguely recall something about the way gp is built, without linking >

Re: [sage-devel] missing coercion?

;z", sparse=True); Q = PolynomialRing(ZZ, > "z", sparse=False) > sage: P.has_coerce_map_from(Q) > False > > How does this fit with > > "And of course you can convert even when Q is not sparse."? > > Martin > > On Wednesday, 12 October 2022 at 2

Re: [sage-devel] missing coercion?

Yes, that's expected. sage: P = PolynomialRing(GF(2), "z", sparse=True); Q = PolynomialRing(ZZ, "z", sparse=True) sage: P.has_coerce_map_from(Q) True And of course you can convert even when Q is not sparse. David On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 4:58 PM 'Martin R' via sage-devel <

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

I will also note that the final vote in favor of moving to github was 46 to 8 in favor. Another few weeks of discussion, on top of the substantial amount of time spent over the last few months (in fact, over the last decade), is unlikely to have changed the outcome. David On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: move Sage development to Github

Thanks to everyone for voting! The final results are 46 in favor of moving to Github and 8 against. There is still a lot of work to be done to carry out the transition, and we'll be coordinating on this wiki page and this trac

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: move Sage development to Github

Just a reminder that voting ends tomorrow (noon EDT, 16:00 UTC), so if you've been putting off voting you should do so now. David On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 7:39 AM Alex J Best wrote: > +1 for github > > On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 7:23:36 PM UTC+2 David Roe wrote: > >> De

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: move Sage development to Github

-migrating to self-hosted Gitlab. > > Le mercredi 21 septembre 2022 à 19:23:36 UTC+2, David Roe a écrit : > >> Dear Sage developers, >> Following extensive discussion, both recently >> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/Pg-rmYAUBwAJ> >> (

Re: [sage-devel] Re: specification of __bool__

Nils put it well; please don't change __bool__ for p-adic and power series. It should be compatible with equality testing. David On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 11:44 AM Nils Bruin wrote: > It seems attractive that for numerical types, bool(a) gives that same > result as "not(a==0)", which would

Re: [sage-devel] Re: is it intentional that prod does not stop when it hits 0?

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 4:39 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel < sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: > @chris: that's a great point. Although I thought that the convention for > "_bool_" is to return False only if it provably False, and otherwise True? > That's not the convention for p-adics: sage:

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

This is Github's documentation for doing it, but it's pretty annoying: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/committing-changes-to-your-project/creating-and-editing-commits/creating-a-commit-with-multiple-authors Maybe we could create some automation to add these kinds of comments to the

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

ewhere (not every contributor to Sage or its > dependencies/packages is there) ? > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 6:23 PM David Roe wrote: > > > > Dear Sage developers, > > As announced in a parallel thread, we are voting to move Sage > development from Trac to Github. Se

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: move Sage development to Github

+1 for Github On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 1:36 PM William Stein wrote: > +1 for Github > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 10:23 AM David Roe wrote: > > > > Dear Sage developers, > > Following extensive discussion, both recently (prompted by issues > upgrading the trac server

[sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

Dear Sage developers, As announced in a parallel thread, we are voting to move Sage development from Trac to Github. Several of us have created a wiki page attempting to summarize arguments in favor of each system, and this thread

[sage-devel] VOTE: move Sage development to Github

Dear Sage developers, Following extensive discussion, both recently (prompted by issues upgrading the trac server) and over the

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >