On Apr 1, 2010, at 3:41 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2010-Apr-01 08:37:12 +0100, David Kirkby
wrote:
What do others feel about these two cenaros
1) Have official support for a large number of Linux distributions,
even though there are not the resources to test on them.
2) Have a smaller numbe
On 2010-Apr-01 08:37:12 +0100, David Kirkby wrote:
>What do others feel about these two cenaros
>
>1) Have official support for a large number of Linux distributions,
>even though there are not the resources to test on them.
>
>2) Have a smaller number of officially supported distributions on
>whi
Florent Hivert wrote:
Hi There,
It sounds like David's definition is that every release of Sage is tested
on Suse before release by at least compiling it and running all doctests
without errors (David, correct me if I'm misinterpreting your views!).
How does your definition differ, if
On 04/01/2010 10:56 AM, Florent Hivert wrote:
I there ! I don't know why among all the other distributions openSuSE is
driving so much attention
I just picked something at random. No offense or other interpretation
intended.
Thanks,
Jason
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-d
Hi There,
>> It sounds like David's definition is that every release of Sage is tested
>> on Suse before release by at least compiling it and running all doctests
>> without errors (David, correct me if I'm misinterpreting your views!).
>> How does your definition differ, if it does?
>
>
Jason Grout wrote:
On 04/01/2010 01:56 AM, William Stein wrote:
Sage didn't get to where it is now and won't get to where it needs to
go by such an attitude of not supporting platforms. If anything, we
need to solidly support far more platforms than we currently support.
William, what is yo
On 04/01/2010 01:56 AM, William Stein wrote:
Sage didn't get to where it is now and won't get to where it needs to
go by such an attitude of not supporting platforms. If anything, we
need to solidly support far more platforms than we currently support.
William, what is your definition of the
What do others feel about these two cenaros
1) Have official support for a large number of Linux distributions,
even though there are not the resources to test on them.
2) Have a smaller number of officially supported distributions on
which it is practical to test Sage on before an official rele
On 1 April 2010 07:56, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:50 PM, David Kirkby
> wrote:
>> If developers do not have access to a platform, and/or they do not
>> have the time to test Sage on that platform, then remove offical
>> support for the platform. Given the following two po
On 31 March 2010 17:51, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2010, at 5:45 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> IMHO, if Sage is ever to become a viable alternative to Mathematica,
>> Maple, MATLAB and Macsyma, you are going to have to shift the emphasis
>> towards more thorough testing before ma
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:50 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 1 April 2010 01:15, William Stein wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
>>> http://wiki.sagemath.org/devel/BuildFarm/sage-4.3
>>>
>>> and report their success/failure. Wait until there is a successful build
>>> repor
On 1 April 2010 01:15, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
>> http://wiki.sagemath.org/devel/BuildFarm/sage-4.3
>>
>> and report their success/failure. Wait until there is a successful build
>> report from each supported platform before releasing.
>
> That woul
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>
>> My first worry -- how can you fix the problems that do get reported?
>> Often when people report build problems, those problems are on their
>> personal crufty Linux installs, which they won't or can't give access
William Stein wrote:
My first worry -- how can you fix the problems that do get reported?
Often when people report build problems, those problems are on their
personal crufty Linux installs, which they won't or can't give access
to, and which can be (mis-)configured in all kinds of ways, or even
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
>> > We all want more testing. I see two options:
>>
>> > (1) Change lots of other people's behavior.
>> > (2) Set up a large-scale automated build farm.
>>
>> > Though we have neither right now, I see (2) happening before (1).
>>
> ...
>>
On Mar 31, 1:14 pm, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
> However more than once I regretted "sage -upgrade" because it broke
> something that I was using and had to use it again right then.
Don't use "sage -upgrade" like this! I always copy the entire Sage
directory first: if I have a directory "sage-4-
> > We all want more testing. I see two options:
>
> > (1) Change lots of other people's behavior.
> > (2) Set up a large-scale automated build farm.
>
> > Though we have neither right now, I see (2) happening before (1).
>
...
> If I don't either
>
> (a) get much more money in grants,
> (b)
On 31 March 2010 17:59, William Stein wrote:
> If I don't either
>
> (a) get much more money in grants,
> (b) have more volunteers willing to do (2) and (1), or
> (c) start a company and sell Sage binaries that are more polished,
>
> then indeed Sage releases will likely never be as polishe
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2010, at 5:45 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> IMHO, if Sage is ever to become a viable alternative to Mathematica,
>> Maple, MATLAB and Macsyma, you are going to have to shift the emphasis
>> towards more thorough testing
On Mar 31, 2010, at 5:45 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
[...]
IMHO, if Sage is ever to become a viable alternative to Mathematica,
Maple, MATLAB and Macsyma, you are going to have to shift the emphasis
towards more thorough testing before making releases. I can't imagine
Wolfram Research shipping bina
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:45 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 31 March 2010 01:57, William Stein wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
>
>>> Could it be a forward compatibility issue?
>>>
>>> 1) Sage 4.3.4 contains the latest iconv (1.13.1)
>>>
>>> 2) Code is Sage tests iconv, f
On 31 March 2010 01:57, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
>> Could it be a forward compatibility issue?
>>
>> 1) Sage 4.3.4 contains the latest iconv (1.13.1)
>>
>> 2) Code is Sage tests iconv, finds it's a late version, and makes use of the
>> features in t
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:51 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Jaap Spies wrote:
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
> William was keen that a new release was made quick
William Stein wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:51 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Jaap Spies wrote:
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
William was keen that a new release was made quickly to fix the issues
which prevent 4.3.4 building on several linux distros.
A patch is her
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:51 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Jaap Spies wrote:
>> Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>>>
>>> William was keen that a new release was made quickly to fix the issues
>>> which prevent 4.3.4 building on several linux distros.
>>>
>>> A patch is here:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Jaap Spies wrote:
> Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>>
>> William was keen that a new release was made quickly to fix the issues
>> which prevent 4.3.4 building on several linux distros.
>>
>> A patch is here:
>>
>> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8567
>>
>> If
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
William was keen that a new release was made quickly to fix the issues
which prevent 4.3.4 building on several linux distros.
A patch is here:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8567
If that is added, Sage should build ok on these linux distros, which
otherwise d
27 matches
Mail list logo
