[sage-devel] Re: Sage builds for i386

Hi Kitserve, On 25 March 2014 21:15, Kitserve wrote: > Hi, > > Any chance of a build of Sage for i386 architecture? So far as I can > tell, the aims repo only contains amd64 builds at the moment, and I > haven't been able to rebuild the package myself from apt-get source as > the debian/rules fi

Re: [sage-devel] A "# bug" tag for doctests

> While there may be things we can do to bring attention to current bugs, > there's no way we can force someone to fix a particular bug. We do have > mechanisms to try to encourage bux fixing: Bug Days workshops, lists of > tickets on trac I hate bug days workshop, it's like you have to spend

Re: [sage-devel] A "# bug" tag for doctests

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Nathann Cohen wrote: > > No, it would have the consequence that there would never be any Sage > release anymore. > > Still, can we find some middle ground that would make it impossible > for known bugs to never be fixed ? > While there may be things we can do to b

Re: [sage-devel] A "# bug" tag for doctests

> No, it would have the consequence that there would never be any Sage release > anymore. Still, can we find some middle ground that would make it impossible for known bugs to never be fixed ? Nathann -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" gr

Re: [sage-devel] A "# bug" tag for doctests

On 2014-03-25 20:19, Nathann Cohen wrote: Well. I think that it is extreme, but that being to boast that *ANY* bug is a blocker and that we fix them all is really worthwhile. Some people here say from time to time that Sage should fight the existing proprietary softwares more directly, and someth

Re: [sage-devel] A "# bug" tag for doctests

> Some projects, with gcc being one example I believe, have "expected failures" Whilst not executing tests which display bugs might be attractive to some, I think it would be better to execute the test and report the failure as an expected failure. There is more chance someone will fix it then.

Re: [sage-devel] A "# bug" tag for doctests

On 25 Mar 2014 13:14, "Nathann Cohen" wrote: > Thus, I wondered if it would be interesting to have a "# bug" flag for doctests. Those doctests would *NOT* be tested by default, and all those doctests would be ... broken. Some projects, with gcc being one example I believe, have "expected failu

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A "# bug" tag for doctests

Hi, Le 25/03/2014 14:56, Nathann Cohen a écrit : I think this already exists -- look into sage/doctest/parsing.py. If I read that correctly: Oh. O_O Right O_O Then I guess I will use it. ~$ grep "#.*known bug" sage/ -R | wc -l 14 Not over-used. Hmmm... Right right. Thanks :-)

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A "# bug" tag for doctests

> There's also the stopgap business, though that never really took off. Don't tell me about it sage: Poset(DiGraph()).relabel({}) I would just like to make sure that bugs are actually fixed, and that we are reminded regularly that they are still alive if we do nothing to get rid of them. N

[sage-devel] Re: Need contact who can provide direction on default jquery-ui theme for sage-notebook...

On 3/25/14, 9:02, kcrisman wrote: As I have posted to the sage-notebook list, I have pure javascript Jmol working in the notebook (see track ticket #16004: http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16004 ). However, this requires an up-to-date v

[sage-devel] Re: Need contact who can provide direction on default jquery-ui theme for sage-notebook...

As I have posted to the sage-notebook list, I have pure javascript Jmol > working in the notebook (see track ticket #16004: > http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16004). However, this requires an > up-to-date version of jquery. It appears that the jquery-ui-1.8.11 (about > 3 years old) which we

[sage-devel] Re: Need contact who can provide direction on default jquery-ui theme for sage-notebook...

As I have posted to the sage-notebook list, I have pure javascript Jmol > working in the notebook (see track ticket #16004: > http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16004). However, this requires an > up-to-date version of jquery. It appears that the jquery-ui-1.8.11 (about > 3 years old) which we

[sage-devel] Re: State of the German documentation

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:02:02 AM UTC-4, Beni Grind wrote: > > > > well, there is a link to this document here: >> http://www.sagemath.org/help.html#SageStandardDoc >> >> Indeed, the structure of the pages w.r.t. languages is confusing. >> >> >> > > > I checked the German documentation h

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A "# bug" tag for doctests

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:50:51 AM UTC-4, John Cremona wrote: > > I think this already exists -- look into sage/doctest/parsing.py. If > I read that correctly: > > > def parse_optional_tags(string): > """ > Returns a set consisting of the optional tags from the following > se

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A "# bug" tag for doctests

I think this already exists -- look into sage/doctest/parsing.py. If I read that correctly: def parse_optional_tags(string): """ Returns a set consisting of the optional tags from the following set that occur in a comment on the first line of the input string. - 'long time'

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A "# bug" tag for doctests

> I think this already exists -- look into sage/doctest/parsing.py. If > I read that correctly: Oh. O_O Right O_O Then I guess I will use it. ~$ grep "#.*known bug" sage/ -R | wc -l 14 Not over-used. Hmmm... Right right. Thanks :-) Nathann -- You received this message because

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A "# bug" tag for doctests

> You can already write something like "# bug - not tested"... Well, I think that "# optional - bug" does the job. But it's rather useless if I am the only one to do it, plus reviewers may not accept it at first unless we discuss it here. Nathann -- You received this message because you are sub

[sage-devel] Re: A "# bug" tag for doctests

Nathann Cohen wrote: > The following code does not return what it should:: > > sage: Z3 = IntegerModRing(3) > sage: C = cartesian_product([Z3,Z3]) > sage: C([2,2])^2 # bug > (1, 1) You can already write something like "# bug - not tested"... > And of course we could get the list of them with a "

[sage-devel] A "# bug" tag for doctests

Helloo everybody ! I was looking at old tickets like #13347, which seems to be a collection of bug reports (though perhaps I am wrong ?) but has not been adressed. Thus, I wondered if it would be interesting to have a "# bug" flag for doctests. Those doctests would *NOT* be tested by default,

[sage-devel] Re: State of the German documentation

well, there is a link to this document here: > http://www.sagemath.org/help.html#SageStandardDoc > > Indeed, the structure of the pages w.r.t. languages is confusing. > > > I checked the German documentation here http://www.sagemath.org/de/ and from the notebook of my local Sage install.

[sage-devel] Re: State of the German documentation

On 2014-03-25, Thierry wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 03:43:23AM -0700, Beni Grind wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Some time ago I wrote a tutorial for the German documentation about how >> Sage could be used in Gymnasiums in German-speaking countries. This >> tutorial is still not included (

[sage-devel] Re: %load

On 3/24/14, 3:25, Volker Braun wrote: I find the various commands to evaluate code from a file confusing (and not really documented). When was the English language changed so that "load" implies evaluation? Probably when it was programmed into magma: http://linux.math.tifr.res.in/manuals/html/

Re: [sage-devel] State of the German documentation

Hi, On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 03:43:23AM -0700, Beni Grind wrote: > Hi all, > > Some time ago I wrote a tutorial for the German documentation about how > Sage could be used in Gymnasiums in German-speaking countries. This > tutorial is still not included (neither in the docs on the web nor in the

[sage-devel] State of the German documentation

Hi all, Some time ago I wrote a tutorial for the German documentation about how Sage could be used in Gymnasiums in German-speaking countries. This tutorial is still not included (neither in the docs on the web nor in the notebook). The ticket 14643 is still open: http://trac.sagemath.org/tick