On Dec 2, 10:08 pm, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:00 PM, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > I completely agree. And with quick, automated feedback they can go and > >> > take care of anything they missed rather than wait two weeks and a > >> > release cycle later to see that some corner case was missed that > >> > affected a doctest far away and now they need a tiny fix + rebase + > >> > context switch to re-upload the new patch, as well as the reviewers > >> > time being wasted. > > >> On this note:http://sage.math.washington.edu:21100/ticket/ > > > Umm... can you explain? It looks cool, but I'm not quite sure what > > it's saying with "new". > > New = it hasn't been tested yet. > > > And is it saying that all 62 of those yellow > > patches caused some test to fail? > > Yep. You can look at the log to see what. Most of the time it's just > sage0 or startuptime, which have been failing in plain 4.6 for me. > Click on a ticket for more information.
Oh, I only saw the links to Trac. Sort of strange that this happens, especially given the lightning speed with which the doctests mostly pass! > > Against which version of Sage? > > 4.6 It says in the tests. Sorry. > > Sorry for my ignorance - I hadn't heard of this before. > > That's because I just finished it last night :). :) -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
