On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery
wrote:
> Adding a couple calls like:
>
> register_unpickle_override('sage.categories.category', 'Sets', Sets)
>
> did the trick (thanks Carl!). By the way, where in the Sage source
> tree should I put those?
Well, obviously we don't have
Dear Craig, David, Mike, Robert:
Good news: I had not look at the unpickling issues outside of the
combinatorics code, thinking they would be similar to those in there,
that is fairly easy to handle. They actually turned out to be all
completely trivial: it's just that the basic categorie
Dear Craig, David, Mike, Robert:
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:01:47AM -0700, Nicolas Thiéry wrote:
> I'll also give it a shot at the getattr alternative implementation
> (as we had discussed), so that you can focus on reviewing.
Done for the second one: see categories-getattr_hack-nt.patch
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 06:19:35PM -0700, Nicolas Thiéry wrote:
> Dear Craig, David, Mike, Robert:
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:01:47AM -0700, Nicolas Thiéry wrote:
> > I'll also give it a shot at the getattr alternative implementation
> > (as we had discussed), so that you can focus on r
Dear Craig, David, Mike, Robert:
Thanks for this week of intensive work together!
In the plane, I'll be working on updating the names of the categories
(AbelianGroups -> CommutativeAdditiveGroup, ...). I'll also give it a
shot at the getattr alternative implementation (as we had discusse
> I am up and running, fresh and full of energy and hope. And I have a
> bold plan for getting the core of the category patch in by tomorrow,
> and the rest in 10 days.
Oh and I forgot the most important part of the plan: once the core is
in Sage, we should all go sea kayaking to rejoice about it
On May 20, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
>
>> I won't be there by 3:00, but later this afternoon would be good.
>
> Sounds good; I did not get food yet, and this is becoming urgent. Just
> setup a time, and I'll be there!
I haven't eaten yet either, will head down to the SCC at 3:20
On May 20, 3:00 pm, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
wrote:
> > I won't be there by 3:00, but later this afternoon would be good.
>
> Sounds good; I did not get food yet, and this is becoming urgent. Just
> setup a time, and I'll be there!
>
> > I would like to build this on top of a nearly-complete 4.0 to
> I won't be there by 3:00, but later this afternoon would be good.
Sounds good; I did not get food yet, and this is becoming urgent. Just
setup a time, and I'll be there!
> I would like to build this on top of a nearly-complete 4.0 to do some
> real testing and not have to do any more rebasin
On May 20, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
>
> Dear Sage / Sage-Combinat developers,
>
> I am up and running, fresh and full of energy and hope. And I have a
> bold plan for getting the core of the category patch in by tomorrow,
> and the rest in 10 days.
>
> Carl, Craig, David,
Dear Sage / Sage-Combinat developers,
I am up and running, fresh and full of energy and hope. And I have a
bold plan for getting the core of the category patch in by tomorrow,
and the rest in 10 days.
Carl, Craig, David, Mike, Robert (B): what about meeting at 3pm to
build a consensus ar
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 04:24:31PM -0700, mabshoff wrote:
> > > But please: *keep me updated about any such change as soon as
> > > possible* so as to limit conflicts. Every late conflict resolution
> > > just delays even further the final merge.
> >
> > Seehttp://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticke
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 04:12:00PM -0700, mabshoff wrote:
> On Apr 25, 8:39 am, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
> > Before posting the patch to trac, I'll split it up into:
> >
> > - patch with all trivial import updates (the most invasive one)
> > - main patch with the category framework (with updates to
On Apr 30, 1:37 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery
>
> wrote:
Hi Nicolas,
> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 08:50:50AM -0700, William Stein wrote:
> >> Just for the record, I hate when there is a looming patch over
> >> months of time whose main impact o
On Apr 25, 8:39 am, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
wrote:
Hi Nicolas,
> Before posting the patch to trac, I'll split it up into:
>
> - patch with all trivial import updates (the most invasive one)
> - main patch with the category framework (with updates to
> parents/morphism/...)
> and the categ
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 08:50:50AM -0700, William Stein wrote:
>> Just for the record, I hate when there is a looming patch over
>> months of time whose main impact on Sage is to keep the rest of Sage
>> from improving in quality. F
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 08:50:50AM -0700, William Stein wrote:
> Just for the record, I hate when there is a looming patch over
> months of time whose main impact on Sage is to keep the rest of Sage
> from improving in quality. For example, with Bill Furnish working on
> symoblic for months, the
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery
wrote:
>
>> At this stage I do believe you might have a hard time getting this
>> into 4.0 given the time frame and the ToDo list, but we will see what
>> happens :)
>
> I let you pickup the best option.
>
>> Aren't there major design issues like
> At this stage I do believe you might have a hard time getting this
> into 4.0 given the time frame and the ToDo list, but we will see what
> happens :)
I let you pickup the best option.
> Aren't there major design issues like dynamic classes to be
> discussed first? You mentioned a design docu
On Apr 25, 12:13 am, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 06:24:38PM -0700, mabshoff wrote:
Hi Nicolas,
> I really would want to get the category code in Sage soon (4.0???):
At this stage I do believe you might have a hard time getting this
into 4.0 given the time frame and
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 06:24:38PM -0700, mabshoff wrote:
> while there should be a quick 3.4.2 to mop up patches from trac before
> the big 4.0 jump today we had a planning session during the UW status
> meeting about the goals for Sage 4.0. The result is at
>
>http://wiki.sagemath.org/plan/
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Tim Abbott wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Gonzalo Tornaria wrote:
>
>> would it make sense to have a small "sage-source" debian package which
>> depends on the (few) build tools required to build debian and which
>> upon installation downloads sage, compiles it,
On Apr 24, 3:30 pm, Tim Abbott wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, mabshoff wrote:
Hi Tim,
> > Is that correct or are the GNUisms Victor's fault?
>
> I would assume that is correct. I didn't actually write any of the code
> for NTL 5.5; Victor did all the work there. That said, I thought his
> in
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, mabshoff wrote:
> Oops, forgot to mention IML. I have stuffed all this at
>
>http://wiki.sagemath.org/debian/sage-4.0.x-in-experimental
>
> and I think any info from Tim I missed or he will discover in the
> future should be added there. I will add ticket link for exist
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, mabshoff wrote:
> Is that correct or are the GNUisms Victor's fault?
I would assume that is correct. I didn't actually write any of the code
for NTL 5.5; Victor did all the work there. That said, I thought his
intention was to not require GNU make as he mentioned it as o
On Apr 24, 3:09 pm, mabshoff wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2:50 pm, Ben Goodrich wrote:
> So the following packages need to be sorted out:
>
> * numpy to 1.3
> * scipy to 0.7 (maybe 0.7.1 if it is out by then)
> * NTL to 5.5
> * jquery
> * matplotlib (I know they have been talking about doing a
On Apr 24, 3:07 pm, David Harvey wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2:26 pm, Tim Abbott wrote:
Hi David,
> > As I understand it, David Harvey isn't physically at NYU yet and nobody
> > had mentioned the patch to Victor prior to my sending it to Victor.
>
> Actually, I've been physically at NYU since last J
On Apr 24, 2:50 pm, Ben Goodrich wrote:
Hi Ben,
> Right, anyone (mostly servers) using Debian stable or oldstable is not
> going to be able to keep up with Sage easily.
Agreed, but I think you misjudge the number of people running Debian
stable on non-server scenarios. It is also quite com
On Apr 24, 2:26 pm, Tim Abbott wrote:
> As I understand it, David Harvey isn't physically at NYU yet and nobody
> had mentioned the patch to Victor prior to my sending it to Victor.
Actually, I've been physically at NYU since last July, i.e. almost a
year. But Victor has been away on sabbatica
On Apr 24, 5:20 pm, mabshoff wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2:12 pm, Ben Goodrich wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 2:27 pm, Tim Abbott wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> > On the issue of using pre-release versions of Sage dependencies,
> > perhaps as a last resort we could ask Debian package maintainers to
> > upload a
On Apr 24, 11:26 am, Tim Abbott wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, mabshoff wrote:
Hi Tim,
> > Well, you pushed patches upstream that contain GNUisms and I will end
> > up patching it out of the sources again, so I am not too happy about
> > that since upstream way too often does not understand
On Apr 24, 2:12 pm, Ben Goodrich wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2:27 pm, Tim Abbott wrote:
Hi Ben,
> On the issue of using pre-release versions of Sage dependencies,
> perhaps as a last resort we could ask Debian package maintainers to
> upload a SVN version to the experimental repository and a reaso
On Apr 24, 11:27 am, Tim Abbott wrote:
Hi Tim,
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Jason Grout wrote:
> > Jqueryui can actually be updated to the latest release, which is later
> > than the svn version shipping with Sage, so that shouldn't be a problem.
> > Matplotlib should be releasing a new version
On Apr 24, 2:27 pm, Tim Abbott wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Jason Grout wrote:
> > Jqueryui can actually be updated to the latest release, which is later
> > than the svn version shipping with Sage, so that shouldn't be a problem.
> > Matplotlib should be releasing a new version Real Soon No
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Jason Grout wrote:
> Jqueryui can actually be updated to the latest release, which is later
> than the svn version shipping with Sage, so that shouldn't be a problem.
> Matplotlib should be releasing a new version Real Soon Now, and then
> can be upgraded. Currently,
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, mabshoff wrote:
> Well, we can try. But the whole point is that is someone posts a pari-
> svn.spkg which fixes bugs in functions Sage does not use and adds
> functionality that is asked for by people no one will be willing to
> wait 3 or 6 months to merge that. It might be
On Apr 24, 12:19 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> mabshoff wrote:
Hi David,
> > OK. Not that for gcc 4.2.2 the gfortran creates completely broken code
> > on Sparc, so the only toolchain I will be using is the one specified
> > above since it is well tested by me.
>
> But it's pretty much ir
mabshoff wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 23, 6:23 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
> wrote:
>> mabshoff wrote:
>>> Hello,
>
>
>> Hi Michael,
>
> Hi David,
>
>> As Sage on Solaris needs a custom tool chain, could a script be provided
>> that builds that tool chain from a full (but fresh) installation of the
>> la
On Apr 23, 10:57 pm, Tim Abbott wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, mabshoff wrote:
> > I doubt this will ever happen. Soon for example we plan to switch to
> > the svn version of pari which absolutely changes lots of things in
> > Sage in non-backward compatible ways, so you cannot use the stable
>
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, mabshoff wrote:
> Sure, NTL might not be the best example here, but say matplotlib. We
> did not update to an svn release to make life harder for you, but
> because we needed a patch that was upstreamed and not easily
> rebasable. I think all the issue can and will be sorted
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, mabshoff wrote:
> I doubt this will ever happen. Soon for example we plan to switch to
> the svn version of pari which absolutely changes lots of things in
> Sage in non-backward compatible ways, so you cannot use the stable
> pari release with Sage any more. And given the ti
On Apr 23, 10:34 pm, Tim Abbott wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, mabshoff wrote:
Hi Tim,
> > Another thing: In 3.4.1 we downgraded GAP to 4.4.10 from 4.4.12 that
> > was upgraded in Sage 3.3 due to a significant number of bugs and
> > issues in GAP 4.4.12. How would you deal with something like
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, mabshoff wrote:
> Another thing: In 3.4.1 we downgraded GAP to 4.4.10 from 4.4.12 that
> was upgraded in Sage 3.3 due to a significant number of bugs and
> issues in GAP 4.4.12. How would you deal with something like that in
> the packaged version of Sage? The whole point abo
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, William Stein wrote:
> >> What do people think about this proposal?
>
> -1 from me as a goal for 4.0, since we already have a very daunting
> challenge to accomplish the current goals for 4.0 in the timeframe we
> have set, unless of course you are volunteering to do all of
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Gonzalo Tornaria wrote:
> would it make sense to have a small "sage-source" debian package which
> depends on the (few) build tools required to build debian and which
> upon installation downloads sage, compiles it, and places it in a
> (debian specific) standard place in the
On Apr 23, 5:51 am, "Georg S. Weber"
wrote:
> Hi Michael,
Hi Georg,
> probably you did. But just to be sure: did you really do tests with
> the singular spkg I put a while ago at
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/weberg/spkg/
> ?
Your spkg + sage -b to rebuild the extensions blow up
On Apr 23, 2:04 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:58 PM, mabshoff wrote:
> > I doubt this will ever happen. Soon for example we plan to switch to
> > the svn version of pari which absolutely changes lots of things in
> > Sage in non-backward compatible ways, so you cannot
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:58 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Apr 23, 12:57 pm, William Stein wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM, David Roe wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> > +1 from me as a good goal for 4.0. But I don't have a whole lot of
>> > experience with dealing with spkgs, and I'll be workin
On Apr 23, 1:52 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM, mabshoff wrote:
> I think for the near term we should provide a binary tarball of your
> toolchain.
> I just tried dumping it on a completely different sparc box, and it works
> well.
They have been available sinc
On Apr 23, 12:57 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM, David Roe wrote:
Hi,
> > +1 from me as a good goal for 4.0. But I don't have a whole lot of
> > experience with dealing with spkgs, and I'll be working on improving
> > p-adics, so I probably won't be helping much
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Apr 23, 6:23 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
> wrote:
>> mabshoff wrote:
>> > Hello,
>
>
>> Hi Michael,
>
> Hi David,
>
>> As Sage on Solaris needs a custom tool chain, could a script be provided
>> that builds that tool chain from a full (but
On Apr 23, 6:23 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> mabshoff wrote:
> > Hello,
> Hi Michael,
Hi David,
> As Sage on Solaris needs a custom tool chain, could a script be provided
> that builds that tool chain from a full (but fresh) installation of the
> latest version of Solaris, which is Solar
Tim Abbott wrote:
>
> The first is upgrading CVS/SVN versions of dependencies to actual
> releases. I notice the Sage currently has an SVN version of jqueryui, an
> SVN version of matplotlib, and an SVN version of ghmm (to be fair, ghmm
> hasn't released is ages, so I don't blame Sage for tha
On Apr 23, 5:51 am, "Georg S. Weber"
wrote:
> Hi Michael,
Hi Georg,
> probably you did. But just to be sure: did you really do tests with
> the singular spkg I put a while ago at
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/weberg/spkg/
> ?
I will take it for a spin. I am pretty sure we need to
2009/4/23 Tim Abbott :
>
> I'd like to add as a goal that Sage 4.0 works with versions of its
> dependencies available from the relevant upstreams.
>
> For context, I would very much like to be able to package Sage 4.0 for
> Debian once it comes out, since I find the current state of having Sage
>
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM, David Roe wrote:
> +1 from me as a good goal for 4.0. But I don't have a whole lot of
> experience with dealing with spkgs, and I'll be working on improving
> p-adics, so I probably won't be helping much.
> David
>
> 2009/4/23 Tim Abbott
>>
>> I'd like to add a
+1 from me as a good goal for 4.0. But I don't have a whole lot of
experience with dealing with spkgs, and I'll be working on improving
p-adics, so I probably won't be helping much.
David
2009/4/23 Tim Abbott
>
> I'd like to add as a goal that Sage 4.0 works with versions of its
> dependencies
I'd like to add as a goal that Sage 4.0 works with versions of its
dependencies available from the relevant upstreams.
For context, I would very much like to be able to package Sage 4.0 for
Debian once it comes out, since I find the current state of having Sage
3.0.5 from last July to be somew
mabshoff wrote:
> Hello,
>
> while there should be a quick 3.4.2 to mop up patches from trac before
> the big 4.0 jump today we had a planning session during the UW status
> meeting about the goals for Sage 4.0. The result is at
>
>http://wiki.sagemath.org/plan/sage-4.0
>
> It still needs a
Hi Michael,
probably you did. But just to be sure: did you really do tests with
the singular spkg I put a while ago at
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/weberg/spkg/
?
There are quite some changes in it (ask me if you have specific
questions), one or the other of which might possibly help.
On Apr 23, 1:22 am, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009, mabshoff wrote:
>
> > Hello,
Hi Martin,
> > while there should be a quick 3.4.2 to mop up patches from trac before
> > the big 4.0 jump today we had a planning session during the UW status
> > meeting about the goals for
On Thursday 23 April 2009, mabshoff wrote:
> Hello,
>
> while there should be a quick 3.4.2 to mop up patches from trac before
> the big 4.0 jump today we had a planning session during the UW status
> meeting about the goals for Sage 4.0. The result is at
>
>http://wiki.sagemath.org/plan/sage-
62 matches
Mail list logo
