Yes, you just need to change it back to "need review" so that it can be 
reviewed.

Le mercredi 13 avril 2022 à 03:54:33 UTC-4, adarsh.k...@gmail.com a écrit :

> Can I make these changes in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33688 as 
> discussed? The ticket has not been closed yet
>
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:44:36 PM UTC+5:30 David Coudert wrote:
>
>> You are right, this can be removed too.
>> And I'm not sure a parallel version of Boruvka's algorithm is needed. We 
>> already have a large number of spanning tree algorithms.
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 7:56:20 PM UTC+2 patrat...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Just wondering if the third TODO (Randomized spanning tree construction) 
>>> should be removed as well, since I see a function called 
>>> "random_spanning_tree" 
>>> exists already.
>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 8:23:30 AM UTC+1 adarsh.k...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay, then I think that line should be removed right? It can be 
>>>> misleading to potential contributors
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:31:02 PM UTC+5:30 David Coudert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This query has been added in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10433.
>>>>> I don't think that priority queue can be of any help to speed up the 
>>>>> current code.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:03:41 AM UTC+2 adarsh.k...@gmail.com 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was going through Sage's codebase, and I came across the file
>>>>>> ```
>>>>>> SAGE_ROOT/src/sage/graphs/spanning_tree.pyx
>>>>>> ```
>>>>>> [image: Screenshot from 2022-04-10 14-27-45.png]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the TODO section, it is mentioned that 
>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>     - Rewrite: func:`kruskal` to use priority queues.
>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I looked it up on Google and StackOverFlow, but I didn't come across 
>>>>>> any such implementation. The standard implementations all prefer to use 
>>>>>> the 
>>>>>> DisjointSet data structure. I would like to contribute to Sage and if 
>>>>>> someone can point me to a good resource which discusses this concept, 
>>>>>> preferably with a better time complexity than by using Disjoint Sets, 
>>>>>> that 
>>>>>> would be really great
>>>>>>
>>>>>

-- 
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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/97f78a15-a780-4b84-8fd6-d7bd839c4c57n%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to