On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 1:29:14 AM UTC-7, kcrisman wrote: > > I think just before a stable release is probably the *best* time to add a > stopgap, since it's unlikely it will be fixed in the last rc :) >
Indeed, making an invasive change in an rc which probably causes widespread and hard to predict changes in behaviour (there is a lot of behaviour in sage that depends on enumeration order of dictionaries and hence on exact hash values) is probably not a smart move. A stopgap message should have some diagnostic value, however. In this case, the message would probably be triggered quite early on, in an unavoidable case, where the current hash is fine to use. A subsequent use of the hash in a case where its use should really be disallowed would remain unmarked. We might as well add to the banner "disclaimer: sage still has bugs". That said, Vincent and I are basically done with removing the default hash (we identified the problem with the last doctest), so I expect 6.10 will not have this problem anymore--unless unexpected problems surface. It's nice that people care about proper procedure to let sage "do the right thing", but it's worth keeping in mind that effort spent on procedure is effort not spent on actual progress. -- 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 post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
