On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Simon King wrote:
In other words, you suggest that we will in future have "maintainers"
for functions or modules in the SageMath library, although we just got
rid of the good old "SPKG maintainers"?
Good point. Forget this idea.
--
Jori Mäntysalo
Hi Jori,
On 2015-09-23, Jori =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E4ntysalo?= wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
>
>> I had some random people contact me with questions about the modules
>> I've written and I suspect it was due to the AUTHORS block, so it is
>> useful to users.
>
> On Tue, 22
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
I had some random people contact me with questions about the modules
I've written and I suspect it was due to the AUTHORS block, so it is
useful to users.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Nathann Cohen wrote:
code is not static like a scientific paper. Con
Its because the ticket is closed but not yet released; you can't fetch
commits by sha1. It works if you happen to have the commit in your local
copy of the trac repo; e.g. run
git fetch trac public/ticket/18594
Then afterwards both
git fetch trac f257d8224aa79c85a84ced0e69f378fafedbe546
and
Was this every able to get fixed? I'm getting the same problem here on a
different ticket
aram:/media/ubuntudata/Programming/sage (develop)$ git trac checkout 18594
Loading ticket #18594...
Checking out Trac #18594 remote branch
f257d8224aa79c85a84ced0e69f378fafedbe546 -> local branch
t/18594/f
Hi!
I have mentioned the following problem before, but didn't get an answer
(and the problem has not been fixed).
If I do "make test", then $SAGE_ROOT/logs/test.log tells which tests have
failed. However, it does *not* tell *how* they have failed. I.e., it
does not show the expected output versus
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Simon,
>
> By reading your message I am under the impression that you actually
> believe that the information contained in 'authors' block is somehow
> consistent or even remotely correct.
>
> It is not.
>
> *because* it is mainained manually
One design that comes to mind is how distro populate their default
environment. Instead of shoving everything in a single file there is a
top file that source the content of a directory. Depending on your
distro it could be in /etc/env.d or /etc/profile.d.
So individual package can put particular s
Simon,
By reading your message I am under the impression that you actually
believe that the information contained in 'authors' block is somehow
consistent or even remotely correct.
It is not.
*because* it is mainained manually. Which means that we forget to
update it, that those who contribute a
Hi Nathann,
On 2015-09-22, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>> I usually add my name as author when I feel that I'm contributing something
>> new, not just fixing bugs.
>
> It can make sense to add your name when you add something new, but
> code is not static like a scientific paper. Contrary to it, code is
Hi William,
On 2015-09-22, William Stein wrote:
> People probably don't remember the early days of Sage, but there was
> often a belief that the project would be *impossible* due to the math
> culture in which authorship had to be clearly maintained. Many people
> sincerely thought that the GAP
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 14:22:14 UTC-6, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-22 21:24, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > I guess he cared more about acknowledgements
>
> There is nothing wrong with caring about acknowledgements.
>
> I usually add my name as author when I feel that I'm contributing
Hi Dima,
On 2015-09-22, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> One way or another, there are Copyright notices with names in many files,
> and Author entries, sometimes they
> have to do something with each other, sometimes not, sometimes there are
> huge additions done
> by people without adding their names
> I usually add my name as author when I feel that I'm contributing something
> new, not just fixing bugs.
It can make sense to add your name when you add something new, but
code is not static like a scientific paper. Contrary to it, code is
modified over time and after a while an authors block do
Hi Andrey, hi all,
On 2015-09-22, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
> I had some random people contact me with questions about the modules I've
> written and I suspect it was due to the AUTHORS block, so it is useful to
> users.
I did the same as that user. And still do now.
Using "git blame" to find
On 2015-09-22 21:24, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
I guess he cared more about acknowledgements
There is nothing wrong with caring about acknowledgements.
I usually add my name as author when I feel that I'm contributing
something new, not just fixing bugs.
Note that the "git blame" doesn't tell mu
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 12:00:36 UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 8:12:26 PM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>> One way or another, there are Copyright notices with names in many files,
>>
>
> Copyright notices are an entirely different topic from this thread
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 11:49:37 UTC-7, William wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Dima Pasechnik > wrote:
>
> >> Who?
> >> Is he removing his own name or other people's name?
> >
> > see done by the request of the reviewer
>
> Nathann Cohen seems to have written:
>
>"w
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 8:12:26 PM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> One way or another, there are Copyright notices with names in many files,
>
Copyright notices are an entirely different topic from this thread. No /
unclear copyright means: No right for Sage to distribute. So they are
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>> Who?
>> Is he removing his own name or other people's name?
>
> see done by the request of the reviewer
Nathann Cohen seems to have written:
"what is this?" about this in your patch: "+- cf. ``git blame`` for
the others involved"
Th
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 01:38:03 UTC-7, William wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 21, 2015, Dima Pasechnik > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 21 September 2015 21:42:31 UTC-7, William wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
>>> > I have written a couple of AUTHOR
I had some random people contact me with questions about the modules I've
written and I suspect it was due to the AUTHORS block, so it is useful to
users.
Regarding git, it took me a while to get reasonably comfortable with it and
while I like it now, it is unreasonable to expect someone to lea
Yes, but in the absence of an achieved utopia, is there something we can do
here? I see that sage-env already has a lot of LD_LIBRARY_PATH hacking in
it. Might be good to design a system for regularizing this, and moving all
this hacking to that system.
My solution has been to add Python code
I am not that developer :-)
How about this system?
We trim the AUTHOR blocks by just listing the names of contributors to the
given module (to give credits to the contributors);
And we recommend a new contributor to add his/her name to the end of the
list (to give more credits to the initial
On 2015-09-22 13:59, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
On 22/09/15 08:57, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2015-09-22 13:23, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
Or does %runfile just run cython on the file without further thoughts?
No, it's worse: it runs Cython with some additional *bad thoughts*.
Do we just need to
On 22/09/15 08:57, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2015-09-22 13:23, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
Or does %runfile just run cython on the file without further thoughts?
No, it's worse: it runs Cython with some additional *bad thoughts*.
Do we just need to get rid of this use_cache=True?
Vincent
--
Yo
On 2015-09-22 13:23, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
Or does %runfile just run cython on the file without further thoughts?
No, it's worse: it runs Cython with some additional *bad thoughts*.
Cython does dependency tracking just fine, it's the Sage wrapper which
breaks it.
--
You received this mes
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 1:16:46 PM UTC+2, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> > This works
> >
> > sage: !touch my_file.pyx
> > sage: %runfile my_file.pyx
>
> Indeed, but I wouldn't mind if it were automatic somehow :-/
>
> Nathann
>
Isn't it possible to add some distutils directive to trac
On 22/09/15 08:16, Nathann Cohen wrote:
This works
sage: !touch my_file.pyx
sage: %runfile my_file.pyx
Indeed, but I wouldn't mind if it were automatic somehow :-/
It would be reasonable to me that %runfile does execute (or compile) the
file whatever the filestamp says. For automatic recomp
> This works
>
> sage: !touch my_file.pyx
> sage: %runfile my_file.pyx
Indeed, but I wouldn't mind if it were automatic somehow :-/
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
This works
sage: !touch my_file.pyx
sage: %runfile my_file.pyx
Vincent
On 22/09/15 06:27, Nathann Cohen wrote:
Hello everybody,
I work on a c++ file which I call in Sage, through a .pyx file. More
practically, I have a .pyx file that contains these lines:
cdef extern from "/home/ncohen/
Then do
$ git remote add trac g...@trac.sagemath.org:sage.git
And then push to trac when you push (and not origin). With your current
version you are *not* using ssh.
Note that you can have a look at the relatively good documentation
http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/manual_git.ht
2015-09-22 08:43:13 UTC+2, Ralf Stephan:
>
> On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 7:15:56 AM UTC+2, François wrote:
>>
>> OK but I don’t think you should hold back personally.
>>
> It's just a matter of minimizing problems. There is no pressing need
> for override in Pynac.
>
> As to the link I gav
Hello everybody,
I work on a c++ file which I call in Sage, through a .pyx file. More
practically, I have a .pyx file that contains these lines:
cdef extern from "/home/ncohen/lexbfs.cc" :
void hello();
hello()
Now, the code of the .pyx file never changes (it only calls the c++
f
On Monday, September 21, 2015, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, 21 September 2015 21:42:31 UTC-7, William wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
>> > I have written a couple of AUTHORS-blocks, but I think I did it not to
>> have
>> > a credit but to be responsible
>
>
> As a code contributor I feel that core contributors should deserve more
> thanks, not me...
>
>
I feel similarly.
> But what if I start to write my name to comments? Then they can later be
> semi-automatically extracted, if wanted? Like
>
> def foo():
> """
> Do foo.
>
Hi,
Le lundi 21 septembre 2015 21:45:28 UTC+2, Andrey Novoseltsev a écrit :
>
> Can someone with an Android system take a look at this? Is it device
> specific or the same strange thing happens for everybody?
>
It works fine for me:
- Galaxy SIII mini with Android 4.1.2
- version() returns Sage
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, William Stein wrote:
If anything, I think we should systematically do vastly *more* to
clearly acknowledge and appreciate the code contributors to Sage.
They are by far the most important people to the existence of Sage.
As a code contributor I feel that core contributors
38 matches
Mail list logo
