[sage-devel] Re: Governance proposal: Maintainer/code-owner model for .ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows, tox.ini

On Thursday, May 9, 2024 at 3:25:54 AM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: On Monday, May 6, 2024 at 10:49:07 PM UTC-7 Kwankyu Lee wrote: I propose a governance change for a small part of the main Sage repository: 1. The directories *.ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows*. [...] 2. The file *tox.ini

[sage-devel] Re: Governance proposal: Maintainer/code-owner model for .ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows, tox.ini

I propose a governance change for a small part of the main Sage repository: 1. The directories *.ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows*. These are special directories that control the GitHub workflows that run for example on pull requests and when release tags are pushed, as well as the Dev

Re: [sage-devel] Unreasonably slow piecewise function

Moreover, this case seems to spur the need to introduce timing tests to watch out regressions in code performance without a failure. -- 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

Re: [sage-devel] Unreasonably slow piecewise function

On Thursday, May 2, 2024 at 8:54:58 AM UTC+9 Nils Bruin wrote: ... I'd expect that performance can be significantly improved by optimizing the sage code. Exactly. It is related with sage: time bool(x == 0.1) CPU times: user 1.47 s, sys: 133 ms, total: 1.6 s Wall time: 1.14 s False Fixed

Re: [sage-devel] Unreasonably slow piecewise function

On Thursday, May 2, 2024 at 12:37:44 AM UTC+9 Nils Bruin wrote: Working on *why* it might be so slow a bit: %prun for i in range(100r): f(0.1) 798103 function calls (791903 primitive calls) in 1.327 seconds Impressive. Thanks. so, most stuff is happening in maxima and in _subs_,

[sage-devel] Unreasonably slow piecewise function

Hi, I get sage: f = piecewise([((0,1),1)]) sage: time f(0.1) CPU times: user 135 ms, sys: 4.23 ms, total: 140 ms Wall time: 146 ms 1 sage: time f(0.2) CPU times: user 133 ms, sys: 3.56 ms, total: 136 ms Wall time: 137 ms 1 This is painfully slow. Is this normal? -- You received this message

[sage-devel] Re: sagemath-10.4 beta3

https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37840 is handling the problem, I guess. On Sunday, April 28, 2024 at 8:56:36 AM UTC+9 Henri Girard wrote: > I still have this message on ubuntu 24.04 but it compiles fine in wsl2 > (sage 1.4. beta4) > > Any help ? In between I use sage conda 10.2.0 because

[sage-devel] Re: help menu in jupyter notebook

On Saturday, April 27, 2024 at 2:30:00 PM UTC+9 Kwankyu Lee wrote: The app provides access to a local copy of the documentation stored inside the application bundle. The files are reorganized slightly to remove duplication and then compressed with gzip. The app views the files using

[sage-devel] Re: help menu in jupyter notebook

The app provides access to a local copy of the documentation stored inside the application bundle. The files are reorganized slightly to remove duplication and then compressed with gzip. The app views the files using cocoserver , which provides a

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

Wouldn't people in the python world who need a serious amount of math know of sage anyway, and then, if they cannot rely on all of sage because that is too large, use, for example, `citation.get_systems` to see whether they can do without some dependencies? I think they would do `pip

[sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

>> My fear would be that at some point there is a request not to use symbolics in some module, because Lisp is hard to install on some system. >That should not happen. Modularization is downstream to the sage library. Yes, we are restructuring some parts of the sage library to fit with

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Sunday, April 21, 2024 at 7:01:04 AM UTC+9 kcrisman wrote: By choosing to be an exception in the Python world, Sage obviously does something quite wrong. Can someone who is not Dima or Matthias explain to us how it is possible that they both are claiming to represent the normal Python

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

-1 to be in sync with my vote in #37796. On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 5:35:57 AM UTC+9 Marc Culler wrote: > > > On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 12:47:36 PM UTC-5 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

[sage-devel] Re: SingularError in rational_parameterization

No problem with Singular 4.3.2 included in sage (on mac). -- 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 sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this

[sage-devel] Re: sagemath-10.4 beta3

On Sunday, April 14, 2024 at 2:39:35 AM UTC+9 henri girard wrote: Build with manjaro ryzen 9 9700x Thanks for the report. First time to hear of Majaro distro :-) Very easy ! Good. I feel that sagemath betas are very stable these days. -- You received this message because you are

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

+1 -- 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 sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit

Re: [sage-devel] Governance proposal: Maintainer/code-owner model for .ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows, tox.ini

How about redefining the meaning of "CI Fix" label: 1. We designate a person to be the CI manager. 2. For PRs pertaining to the designated directories and files, we add "CI Fix" label 3. The CI manager has the right to merge PRs with "CI Fix" label to develop. 4. The old meaning of "CI Fix"

[sage-devel] Re: Github workflows stopped working due to accidental "crazy" commit

Thanks! -- 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 sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit

[sage-devel] Github workflows stopped working due to accidental "crazy" commit

Because of https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/dEa3i2Fn3ZY/m/gIWG6UpBAAAJ currently github workflows stopped working. Please revoke the commit ASAP! Sorry for inconveniences! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe

Re: [sage-devel] Governance proposal: Maintainer/code-owner model for .ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows, tox.ini

Oops. Experimenting with this idea, I accidentally pushed a "crazy" commit to "develop". Please revoke the commit ASAP! I *mv*ed ".github" directory to "github" and made a symlink ".github -> github" to see if this works, in my own repo. But I accidentally pushed to sagemath/sage! I

Re: [sage-devel] Governance proposal: Maintainer/code-owner model for .ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows, tox.ini

On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 7:51:34 AM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: On Tuesday, April 9, 2024 at 3:28:27 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: How about moving them out of the main Sage tree into separate repos, which can be accessed from the main tree as git submodules? That does not work.

[sage-devel] Re: Governance proposal: Maintainer/code-owner model for .ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows, tox.ini

1. The directories *.ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows*. These are special directories that control the GitHub workflows that run for example on pull requests and when release tags are pushed. 2. The files *tox.ini* and *build/bin/write-dockerfile.sh*. They contain the infrastructure for

[sage-devel] Re: help menu in jupyter notebook

On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 1:30:21 AM UTC+9 Denis wrote: At some point the help menu in jupyter notebooks started pointing to doc.sagemath.org instead of the locally built documentation. I wouldn't mind having a configuration option not to build the documentation, in which case, of

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

Hi, Reviewing a PR is a technical work, but voting on a disputed PR has a political element. So I want to make a political remark concerning most of the disputed PRs. The modularization project (making pip-installation packages that contain portions of the sage library) started years ago with

[sage-devel] Fun vote on INPUT, OUTPUT, EXAMPLES style

Hi, Visit and have fun, voting on rendering style of docstring sections: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37614#issuecomment-2016414900 Thanks for attention in advance. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from

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

+1 -- 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 sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit

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

These disputed PRs under voting need input from the sage community. I think the release manager should deal with a disputed PR that got "positive review" from voting separately and give at least a week or two before deciding on it (to merge). -- You received this message because you are

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

Congratulations!!! -- 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 sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit

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

... if there is any difference in process between the PRs currently set to "positive review" and those currently set to "needs review"? In my opinion, all disputed PRs waiting for voting should be reset to "needs review" status. Kwankyu -- You received this message because you are

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

... 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 but are just introductions). I agree. - It is very hard to find features and learn how to use them for a subject that I am not already

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

On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 7:37:04 PM UTC+9 Giacomo Pope wrote: As a small update, the repository now contains code to - perform arithmetic for - the imaginary model (ramified, one point at infinity) for all cases - the real model (split, two points at infinity) for all cases - the real

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: use "blocker" label only for PRs; use "critical" label for Issues

Voting is closed. Thanks for those who gave attention and voted. 0 clear positive (+1) votes 4 clear negative (-1) votes Hence my proposal is rejected. Other remarks: - Dima's proposal ("grave" instead of "critical") is something to consider if this proposal was accepted. - Sorry to

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

It's still here: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/32024 -- 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 sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view

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

+1 -- 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 sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

+1 -- 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 sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: use "blocker" label only for PRs; use "critical" label for Issues

On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 8:35:24 AM UTC+9 Marc Culler wrote: I have a proposal: It should be forbidden to call for a vote on a proposal before there has been a discussion. Sorry if it was not clear to you, but the discussion before this vote is here:

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

If there is code causing CI failure in random testing, should I mark the fix for this as a "blocker", even if the chance of this failure is small? No. A "blocker" blocks the release. We use it for serious fixes worth the delay. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

[sage-devel] VOTE: use "blocker" label only for PRs; use "critical" label for Issues

Hi, Here I withdraw the early premature "giving up" on my recent proposal, since afterwards there were some positive comments. Hence I open a voting for Proposal: 1. Do not use "blocker" label for Issues, as "blocker" means to delay the release. 2. Instead use "critical" label for a very

[sage-devel] VOTE: use "blocker" label only for PRs; use "critical" label for Issues

Hi, Here I withdraw the early premature "giving up" on my recent proposal, since afterwards there were some positive comments. Hence I open a voting for Proposal: 1. Do not use "blocker" label for Issues, as "blocker" means to delay the release. 2. Instead use "critical" label for a very

[sage-devel] Re: Labels and Reviewing

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 whole proposal,* and if one is negative to any part of the

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

On Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 2:43:18 AM UTC+9 Vincent Delecroix wrote: In that case, let me do a proposal. Introduce a new label distinct from "blocker" for usage 2: PRs that should be merged temporarily before CI tests run I meant by "merged temporarily" the "CI fixes" in Matthias'

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

Anyway, as there are only objections here, I give up. Thanks for opinions. -- 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] Re: Unload "blocker" label

But how does one even report a very serious issue, without offering a ready fix? I am proposing to use "critical" label for that purpose. That is why I also proposed to remove "critical" labels from old Issues (converted from trac tickets). -- You received this message because you are

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

On Monday, February 26, 2024 at 6:49:35 PM UTC+9 Dima Pasechnik wrote: >usage 3: Issues that should be fixed as fast as possible > >To me it is rather "issues that should be fixed before the next >release" (or at least it was the way it was supposed to work when we >had trac). This looks

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

On Monday, February 26, 2024 at 4:46:36 PM UTC+9 tobia...@gmx.de wrote: Just move "usage 2" to a new label. Would be more intuitive and explicit in my opinion. I am a bit inclined to your opinion, but not sure. Others may argue that "usage 1" and " usage 2" are better to be combined under

[sage-devel] Unload "blocker" label

Hi "blocker" label is overloaded too much. It is used for usage 1: PRs that should be merged to the next release usage 2: PRs that are merged temporarily before CI tests run usage 3: Issues that should be fixed as fast as possible I suggest the following: Use "blocker" label only for PRs and

[sage-devel] Unload "blocker" label

Hi "blocker" label is overloaded too much. It is used for usage 1: PRs that should be merged to the next release usage 2: PRs that should be merged temporarily before CI tests run usage 3: Issues that should be fixed as fast as possible I suggest the following: Use "blocker" label only for PRs

[sage-devel] Unload "blocker" label

Hi "blocker" label is overloaded too much. It is used for usage 1: PRs that should be merged to the next PR usage 2: PRs that should be merged temporarily before CI tests run usage 3: Issues that should be fixed as fast as possible I suggest the following: Use "blocker" label only for PRs and

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

Hi, Another "disputed" PR is piled on the heap: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36999 Behind a disputed PR, there is a lot of time and energy wasted from the author, the reviewers, and the audience. The disputed PRs discourage everyone in the community. I am aware that one policy about

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

n "positive review" label is added to the PR. (c) There is no voting period. It is up to the author whether to close the PR or to keep waiting. If David has no time, then I will post a voting on sage-devel after hearing some comments. On Sunday, December 31, 20

[sage-devel] Re: One year of Sage development on GitHub

On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 12:26:50 PM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: Can the status label sync workflow help with this transition, without getting in the way? For example, when the _author_ removes the "needs review" label (without setting "positive review"), set the PR to "draft"?

[sage-devel] Re: One year of Sage development on GitHub

If a draft is marked as *ready for review* the s: needs review label is added. Activate immediately. Sorry. This one is also affected by the github bug. Right? If so, not activate. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To

[sage-devel] Re: One year of Sage development on GitHub

On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 3:11:14 AM UTC+9 seb@gmail.com wrote: This is currently not implemented, but of course possible. But the converse can be activated immediately: If a user converts a ready PR to a draft, all status labels will be removed. Do not activate because of

[sage-devel] Re: One year of Sage development on GitHub

*3. Are the labels on GitHub Issues / PRs helpful?* - Note that new contributors who are not in the Triage team cannot set/change labels! - This includes component labels, but also status labels such as "needs review". We may drop "needs review" label, and start to use github "draft"

[sage-devel] Please use "Issue #" in your code comments

Hi, In https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37403 we are changing how to render ":issue:" role in the documentation. For example, current By github issue #7797, there is a different implementation ... will change to By Issue #7797, there is a different implementation ... Hence,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [Proposal] allow standard packages to be pip packages, reduce source tarball size

there are ways to use pip without internet, with the necessary wheels pre-fetched. That's what Sage does with wheel packages. Yes. This is a sage package of source type "wheel", as Matthias explained. The difference between wheel packages vs pip packages is that the latter don't require

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [Proposal] allow standard packages to be pip packages, reduce source tarball size

By default the package content would be fetched, as pip does, Not just as pip does, but by actually calling "pip" to contact PyPI. and that would mean the default configuration for sage would require internet at install time. That's right. Then Dima's proposal implies assuming

[sage-devel] A guide on choosing an exception for sage developers

We are about to ship https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37311 which adds a guide on choosing exceptions in sage context. Please come and review. -- 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] Unify error for trying to invert non-invertible elements

We are about to ship https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37311 which adds a guide on choosing exceptions in sage context. Please come and review. -- 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] No MathJax display in Sage 10.3.beta notebooks when offline

I guess that before notebook 7, jupyter vendored mathjax with it, but after notebook 7, jupyter only uses cdn. This sounds a strange policy from Jupyter, since it prevents people from using notebooks offline. Are you sure about this? No. I would be happy if it is configurable as Dima

Re: [sage-devel] No MathJax display in Sage 10.3.beta notebooks when offline

With the previous version of Jupyterlab shipped with Sage 10.2, the system's MathJax was used. Can't we tweak the new Jupyterlab shipped with Sage 10.3 to use the system's MathJax as well? We don't do that. Perhaps tweaking is more severe sin than sage vendoring jupyter, from Dima's

Re: [sage-devel] No MathJax display in Sage 10.3.beta notebooks when offline

On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 3:18:06 AM UTC+9 Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: Le mercredi 14 février 2024 à 18:21:04 UTC+1, Matthias Koeppe a écrit : You may recall that we use jupyterlab_mathjax2 because of the discussion in https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36129#issuecomment-1729218062

Re: [sage-devel] No MathJax display in Sage 10.3.beta notebooks when offline

On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 10:55:41 PM UTC+9 Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: Le mercredi 14 février 2024 à 14:51:01 UTC+1, Eric Gourgoulhon a écrit : What is puzzling is that MathJax 3.2.0 seems to have been successfully installed in the Sage tree during the install of Sage 10.3.beta*, cf.

Re: [sage-devel] Proposal: Make pytest, pytest_xdist, pytest_mock, python_build standard packages

+1 from me to the original proposal -- 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 sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web

[sage-devel] Re: One year of Sage development on GitHub

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 3:42:55 PM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 10:16:58 AM UTC-8 Matthias Koeppe wrote: *2. Is our community aware of the sagemath/sage GitHub wiki?* https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki - Are the contents of the wiki front page

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

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 11:15:34 AM UTC+9 Kwankyu Lee wrote: A method (or function) takes objects as input and computes an output. The INPUT block defines coarsely the intended class of mathematical objects. TypeError: the type (that can be checked by isinstance(obj, class

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

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 10:18:45 AM UTC+9 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: I would be vague about a TypeError versus a ValueError. These are used in various ways by different authors over different periods. Helping an author in choosing the most appropriate one among sometimes confusing array

Re: [sage-devel] Proposal: Make pytest, pytest_xdist, pytest_mock, python_build standard packages

How about we initiate a vote on letting standard packages be pip packages? The vote should be rather on assuming internet connectivity for sage build than on allowing standard pip packages. They are equivalent conditions. Right? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

[sage-devel] Re: One year of Sage development on GitHub

1. We have a low development velocity. For example, some simple PRs sit for weeks or months before receiving any review comments. What can we do to improve this? There have always been PRs or trac tickets with no comment for long time. I guess most of us had such tickets in trac era. I

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

A method (or function) takes objects as input and computes an output. The INPUT block defines coarsely the intended class of mathematical objects. TypeError: the type (that can be checked by isinstance(obj, class)) of the input object does not belong to the intended class of mathematical

[sage-devel] Re: Regarding sphinx directives

On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 4:37:50 AM UTC+9 Janmenjaya Panda wrote: Hello, Is *.. raw:: latex *sphinx directive supported by sage (for documentations)? It does not work with me. I don't know why. ... Is the above mentioned list an exhaustive list of sphinx directives allowed in sage?

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

+1 from me on this specific case. On the other hand, there are similar arbitrariness in other cases. So I think there should be a broader discussion on what error should be raised in what situation in mathematical context. This is what I think: A method (or function) takes objects as input and

Re: [sage-devel] Sphinx directives in upper case?

More than 13 years ago we have https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/10077 and https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/10078 that have comments about the case. Some further history might stem from stropping ... Thanks for the pointers. The

Re: [sage-devel] Sphinx directives in upper case?

esday, January 31, 2024 at 9:20:58 PM UTC+9 TB wrote: > >> On 25/01/2024 7:06, Kwankyu Lee wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Our developer guide dictates to write Sphinx directives in upper case. So >> for example, ".. MATH::" instead of ".. math::&qu

[sage-devel] Failure in sage_setup/clean.py

Hi, Built & Test is haunted with failure sage -t --long --random-seed=286735480429121101562228604801325644303 sage_setup/clean.py ** File "sage_setup/clean.py", line 104, in sage_setup.clean._find_stale_files Failed example:

[sage-devel] Re: Sphinx directives in upper case?

In my humble opinion, except ".. SEEALSO::", "..WARNING::", ".. TODO::", ".. NOTE::", ".. RUBRIC::", ".. PLOT::", "..TOPIC::", which seek for reader's attention, we should use lower case (by default) for all other directives, following Sphinx community's trend. In particular, ".. MATH::" is

[sage-devel] Sphinx directives in upper case?

Hi, Our developer guide dictates to write Sphinx directives in upper case. So for example, ".. MATH::" instead of ".. math::". By the way, it seems that Sphinx community seems to regard lower case as norm. So my question is: why do we insist upper case? Could anyone point to a discussion

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

On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 6:38:31 PM UTC+9 Martin R wrote: I just followed a few of the links Matthias posted today, and I must admit that I do not understand a word. That is normal. Just imagine that you are a passenger on a cruise and happened to enter to the engine room of the ship by

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

Hi, Appointing an editor (or editors) seems not a realistic solution, as it would be harder than resolving a disputed PR. Forcing the code of conduct is not realistic either, as we have no means to force it. I advocate for adopting a policy such as David Roe suggested for disputed PRs, as

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

Wish you a happy new year! A year ago, we successfully escaped from a sinking issue management system. Hopefully, the new year will save us from the current spiral that's drowning us. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To

Re: [sage-devel] automatic tests keep failling

Call me a Luddite, but let me remind you that "disputed PRs on CI" appear to be the only way to engage in discussions where the project is heading, and whether it is sustainable this way. That is a noble discussion. I humbly respect that. But we should not stop the machines, for that. --

Re: [sage-devel] automatic tests keep failling

I would have assumed that no-one would look at a PR whose automatic tests were failing, since that *should* indicate that something is wrong with the PR. +++1 My complaint is that even with a PR based on the current develop branch, tests are failing which are not caused by the PR.

[sage-devel] Re: Help fixing doctest warnings

I openen as issue https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/36920 On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 8:41:32 PM UTC+9 Kwankyu Lee wrote: > Hi, > > The string "sig_on_count() # check sig_on/off pairings (virtual doctest)" > is from src/sage/doctest/sources.py line

[sage-devel] Re: Help fixing doctest warnings

Hi, The string "sig_on_count() # check sig_on/off pairings (virtual doctest)" is from src/sage/doctest/sources.py line 234. As I understand it, the warning is caused by a bug in the method _create_doctests() in the same file, which fails to add optional tags correctly to the string. Matthias

Re: [sage-devel] Wanted: Unicode testers with PR #36861

lualatex -- 1 second xelatex -- 1.2 seconds pdflatex -- 0.43 seconds So I totally retract my concern about lualatex being slower than xelatex. In fact it's about the same or faster in this benchmark. That said, pdflatex is noticeably faster than either. That gives another reason to

[sage-devel] Wanted: Unicode testers with PR #36861

Hi, The PR https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36861 aims at switching from pdflatex to xelatex the latex engine to render objects in pdf using the command like "view(objects)" as well as in building the sage documentation. As xelatex natively supports Unicode, we removed lots of commands

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

If we do not want to invent a new label, we may add "s: needs review", "s: needs work", "s:needs info" altogether to get attention. The pending script (https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36292) that automatically manages the github labels won't be happy with this (several status

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

In light of this, I would like to propose to change the policy proposal to an automatic system that draws more attention to the PR, with the hope that new people bring new input and ideas, which then resolves the conflict in a natural way. The proposal already promotes more discussion by

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

I think there needs to be a clear indication that a voting period is active (and when it closes). Perhaps we can use a PR label "s: voting" or "s: needs votes"? If we do not want to invent a new label, we may add "s: needs review", "s: needs work", "s:needs info" altogether to get

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

Meanwhile, Matthias and Dima spent lots of mental energy to produce a prime example showing why we need the policy: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36726 Please come down from sun-shining deck to the murky bottom of our ship to see the danger that might drown all of us... -- You

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

A tangential follow-up to Matthias: I think that our code of conduct should be part of the distributed documentation. Should it be in the Developer's Guide? In some other existing documentation? As a standalone document? Yes. I agree that it is very relevant. But to keep a single source of

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

I agree that we need a policy for disputed PRs. Such a policy should not operate in a way to condemn those raising objections to the PR since we want to keep kind, productive, caring atmosphere as Matthias put it. The policy should be clear and operate semi-automatically. So I suggest the

[sage-devel] Reviewer tools

Hi I created a wiki page that contains simple bash scripts that may be useful to reviewers: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/Reviewer-Tools that may cure the heart missing "git trac". -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To

[sage-devel] Re: Our github checks...

On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 12:50:27 AM UTC+9 tobia...@gmx.de wrote: I've now set some of the github checks as "required", so they get a small tag in the checks list. That should take care of (2). I am not sure if that helps or makes things worse, as that is one more thing to look and

[sage-devel] Re: Our github checks...

Someone who had the same problems made a Chrome extension: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/48154#discussioncomment-6721631 On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:29:01 PM UTC+9 Kwankyu Lee wrote: > Hi, > > I am sorry to say this, but our github checks seem to be a mes

[sage-devel] Our github checks...

Hi, I am sorry to say this, but our github checks seem to be a mess. (1) There are two many checks. I have to scroll. (2) Some checks look similar. I have to think to see which one is significant. (3) They are not sorted. I don't know the order. (4) Some checks are cancelled or skipped. I don't

[sage-devel] Re: What's going on with CI Linux?

Thanks for #36358! On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:12:10 AM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > Fixed in https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36358, which is already on > Volker's branch for 10.2.beta6 > > > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:40:10 AM UTC-7 Kwankyu Lee

[sage-devel] What's going on with CI Linux?

Hi, It is totally failing since 10.2.beta3. Our Build & Test is also failing due to this. Anybody knows what's going on? Would it be recovered for 10.2.beta6? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and

Re: [sage-devel] Make ipympl a standard package

Hi Eric, I see no interaction in the "test_display" notebook rendered by nbviewer. If you provide the latest version of the notebook, I can put it into the notebooks directory of https://github.com/sagemath/sage-binder-env/tree/dev. Where is the notebook? -- You received this message

[sage-devel] Re: Synchronization of GitHub state and priority labels starts on Tuesday July 18th

In a message of https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36020#issuecomment-1722629380, please change to "state label" (or "status label" which I prefer) from "state-label". -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >