On 03/08/2010 12:05 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mar 7, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Florent Hivert wrote:
Hi there,
Note that I've no idea how hard it is to implement in trac, neither
if we
have the necessary hardware to support this load.
From reading the Sage merge script, I think one could use t
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Florent Hivert wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
Note that I've no idea how hard it is to implement in trac, neither if
we
have the necessary hardware to support this load.
>>>
From reading the Sag
On Mar 7, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Florent Hivert wrote:
Hi there,
Note that I've no idea how hard it is to implement in trac,
neither if we
have the necessary hardware to support this load.
From reading the Sage merge script, I think one could use that
script
or write something along sim
Hi there,
> > Note that I've no idea how hard it is to implement in trac, neither if we
> > have the necessary hardware to support this load.
>
> >From reading the Sage merge script, I think one could use that script
> or write something along similar lines to implement a (simple)
> proof-o
Hi Florent,
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Florent Hivert
wrote:
> Note that I've no idea how hard it is to implement in trac, neither if we
> have the necessary hardware to support this load.
>From reading the Sage merge script, I think one could use that script
or write something along si
On Mar 7, 2010, at 3:20 AM, Florent Hivert wrote:
Hi,
A 30-second skim through the list gives me the impression that
there are
probably 3 or 4 issues total that are causing all of these
failures. Of
course I could be wrong, and who knows how hard it will be to fix
those
homology ones
Hi,
> A 30-second skim through the list gives me the impression that there are
> probably 3 or 4 issues total that are causing all of these failures. Of
> course I could be wrong, and who knows how hard it will be to fix those
> homology ones (= chomp didn't build correctly?). This one ju
John H Palmieri wrote:
On Mar 6, 7:58 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
On Mar 6, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
[snip]
A 30-second skim through the list gives me the impression that there
are probably 3 or 4 issues total that are causing all of these
failures. Of course I could be w
On Mar 6, 7:58 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
[snip]
> A 30-second skim through the list gives me the impression that there
> are probably 3 or 4 issues total that are causing all of these
> failures. Of course I could be wrong, and who knows
On Mar 6, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
William Stein wrote:
Hi,
Thanks everybody for all the discussion of sage-5.0 goals. I've
made
a new sage-5.0 milestone
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/milestone/sage-5.0
and I've made a list of our goals. I set the release goal da
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks everybody for all the discussion of sage-5.0 goals. I've made
>> a new sage-5.0 milestone
>>
>> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/milestone/sage-5.0
>>
>> and I've made a list of our goals.
William Stein wrote:
Hi,
Thanks everybody for all the discussion of sage-5.0 goals. I've made
a new sage-5.0 milestone
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/milestone/sage-5.0
and I've made a list of our goals. I set the release goal date at
June 1, 2010, which gives us a full 3 months to
Hi,
Thanks everybody for all the discussion of sage-5.0 goals. I've made
a new sage-5.0 milestone
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/milestone/sage-5.0
and I've made a list of our goals. I set the release goal date at
June 1, 2010, which gives us a full 3 months to meet the given goals.
On Mar 5, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Nick Alexander wrote:
David is trying to argue that the goals for Sage-5.0 should be
* Official Solaris 10 support (all tests pass)
TARGET DATE: Sometime in March?
*instead* of the following:
* 90% doctest coverage score (=write about
On Mar 5, 2010, at 12:23 AM, Simon King wrote:
Hi Robert!
On Mar 5, 12:42 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
[...]
As soon as anything is done with the object, it
does a *real* import, replaces itself in G with the real thing, and
since the reference from G is gone, the LazyImport object would
eventu
Nick Alexander wrote:
David is trying to argue that the goals for Sage-5.0 should be
* Official Solaris 10 support (all tests pass)
TARGET DATE: Sometime in March?
*instead* of the following:
* 90% doctest coverage score (=write about 1500 doctests)
* Official Solaris 10 support (all te
David is trying to argue that the goals for Sage-5.0 should be
* Official Solaris 10 support (all tests pass)
TARGET DATE: Sometime in March?
*instead* of the following:
* 90% doctest coverage score (=write about 1500 doctests)
* Official Solaris 10 support (all tests pass)
* Official C
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
> On 5-Mar-10, at 5:26 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
>> William Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Goals for Sage-5.0:
>>> * 90% doctest coverage score (=write about 1500 doctests)
>>
>> Hopefully with some justification of why the expected resul
On 5-Mar-10, at 5:26 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
William Stein wrote:
Hi,
Goals for Sage-5.0:
* 90% doctest coverage score (=write about 1500 doctests)
Hopefully with some justification of why the expected result is what
it is. Not magic numbers - see
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/s
William Stein wrote:
Hi,
Goals for Sage-5.0:
* 90% doctest coverage score (=write about 1500 doctests)
Hopefully with some justification of why the expected result is what it is. Not
magic numbers - see
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/90d933ea2881cbf8
Hi,
Goals for Sage-5.0:
* 90% doctest coverage score (=write about 1500 doctests)
* Official Solaris 10 support (all tests pass)
* Official Cygwin support (all tests pass)
* Close _all_ tickets listed at
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/wiki/stab1
TARGET DATE: Sometime in
On Mar 5, 2010, at 12:23 AM, Simon King wrote:
Hi Robert!
On Mar 5, 12:42 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
[...]
As soon as anything is done with the object, it
does a *real* import, replaces itself in G with the real thing, and
since the reference from G is gone, the LazyImport object would
eventu
Hi Robert!
On Mar 5, 12:42 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
[...]
> > As soon as anything is done with the object, it
> > does a *real* import, replaces itself in G with the real thing, and
> > since the reference from G is gone, the LazyImport object would
> > eventually be garbage collected.
>
> I've
On Mar 4, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Simon King wrote:
Hi Robert!
On 4 Mrz., 19:21, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
[...]
See, for example, lazy import athttp://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7502
Thank you very much, that was almost what I was hoping for.
What I don't like in that solution:
If you lazil
Hi Robert!
On 4 Mrz., 19:21, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
[...]
> See, for example, lazy import athttp://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7502
Thank you very much, that was almost what I was hoping for.
What I don't like in that solution:
If you lazily import, say, QQ, then QQ will forever be a Lazy
On Mar 4, 2010, at 5:24 AM, Simon King wrote:
Hi!
On Mar 4, 8:35 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
[...]
I think we can have the names there without importing all the code
behind everything. With tab completion, a huge global namespace isn't
that bad.
How would this be possible, technically? I mea
2010/3/4 Simon King :
> Hi!
>
> On Mar 4, 8:35 am, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
> [...]
>> I think we can have the names there without importing all the code
>> behind everything. With tab completion, a huge global namespace isn't
>> that bad.
>
> How would this be possible, technically? I mean, is th
Hi!
On Mar 4, 8:35 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
[...]
> I think we can have the names there without importing all the code
> behind everything. With tab completion, a huge global namespace isn't
> that bad.
How would this be possible, technically? I mean, is there a technical
solution that doe
On 03/04/2010 05:01 AM, Pat LeSmithe wrote:
Is memory use a problem, particularly on busy servers?
It definitely could be an issue on my campus server. I have 3GB in a
virtual machine right now (I'm writing an internal school grant for more
memory soon). Fortunately (?!), I haven't been
On 03/04/2010 01:52 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> Could that be solved by doing that startup as soon as the person logs
> in? Or as soon as they open the worksheet (before they do the first
> evaluate)?
We already do the latter (though not for doc worksheets). From
sagenb.notebook.twist, around line
On 03/04/2010 03:52 AM, John Cremona wrote:
On 4 March 2010 09:46, Jason Grout wrote:
On 03/04/2010 02:35 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
I often run things that take an order of magnitude less time to
run--e.g. I'm reading a paper and want to try out a quick example to get
a feel for something, o
Jason Grout wrote:
On 03/04/2010 02:35 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
I often run things that take an order of magnitude less time to
run--e.g. I'm reading a paper and want to try out a quick example to get
a feel for something, or to factor (or even multiply) several digit
numbers. It also makes i
On 4 March 2010 09:46, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 02:35 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> I often run things that take an order of magnitude less time to
>> run--e.g. I'm reading a paper and want to try out a quick example to get
>> a feel for something, or to factor (or even multiply) seve
On 03/04/2010 02:35 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
I often run things that take an order of magnitude less time to
run--e.g. I'm reading a paper and want to try out a quick example to get
a feel for something, or to factor (or even multiply) several digit
numbers. It also makes it prohibitive to be
On Mar 3, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
William Stein wrote:
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
Right now it takes over 1.5 seconds every time.
wst...@sage:~$ time sage -c "print factor(2010)"
2 * 3 * 5 * 67
real0m1.535s
user0m1.140s
sys 0m0.46
If you need some more examples, with buffer/cache cleared.
tomahawk-~ $ time mupkern input
**MuPAD Pro 4.5.0 -- The Open Computer Algebra System
/| /|
** |Copyright (c) 1997 - 2007 by SciFace Software
| *--|-* All rights reserved.
|/ |/
**
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Florent Hivert
wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:48:28AM -0800, William Stein wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
>> wrote:
>> >> Right now it takes over 1.5 seconds every time.
>> >> wst...@sage:~$ time sage -c "pri
Hi William,
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:48:28AM -0800, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
> wrote:
> >> Right now it takes over 1.5 seconds every time.
> >> wst...@sage:~$ time sage -c "print factor(2010)"
> >> 2 * 3 * 5 * 67
> >> real 0m1.535s
> >>
Martin Rubey wrote:
Personally I have a bit of a problem understanding why I need to
worry about a program starting up in less than 2 s, when I might run
something on it which will take at least one order of magnitude
longer, and probably several order of magnitudes longer.
I can only say why i
> Personally I have a bit of a problem understanding why I need to
> worry about a program starting up in less than 2 s, when I might run
> something on it which will take at least one order of magnitude
> longer, and probably several order of magnitudes longer.
I can only say why it matters for
William Stein wrote:
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
Right now it takes over 1.5 seconds every time.
wst...@sage:~$ time sage -c "print factor(2010)"
2 * 3 * 5 * 67
real0m1.535s
user0m1.140s
sys 0m0.460s
Personaly I don't find that too excessive for a l
On 03/03/2010 05:48 AM, William Stein wrote:
> Pari 0.030s
> Python 0.046s
> Maple 0.111s
> Maxima 0.456s
> Mathematica0.524s
> Matlab 0.844s
> Magma 0.971s
> Sage 1.658s
>
> This is probably the only benchmark that involves a "functio
2010/3/3 William Stein :
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
> wrote:
>>> Right now it takes over 1.5 seconds every time.
>>> wst...@sage:~$ time sage -c "print factor(2010)"
>>> 2 * 3 * 5 * 67
>>> real 0m1.535s
>>> user 0m1.140s
>>> sys 0m0.460s
>>
>> Personaly I don
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
>> Right now it takes over 1.5 seconds every time.
>> wst...@sage:~$ time sage -c "print factor(2010)"
>> 2 * 3 * 5 * 67
>> real 0m1.535s
>> user 0m1.140s
>> sys 0m0.460s
>
> Personaly I don't find that too excessive for a larg
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Dtrace might be a very useful tool to find out what is using the time
up. Dtrace was developed by Sun, but Apple use it on OS X. I believe
Apple have wrapped it in a GUI called 'Instruments'.
I should point out that
* You need to be root to use Dtrace
* I'm not awar
William Stein wrote:
By the way, OS X 10.6 was a major new release of OS X, and the big
claim that Jobs made when announcing it was: "no new features!"
Marketing comes into play a lot here. I think there were good reasons, because
10.5 was highly criticised as buggy.
It
was all about opt
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 2:42 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 2 March 2010 19:01, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
>> Just a thought, would knocking out this important list of bugs be a good
>> goal for Sage 5.0?
>>
>> - Robert
>
> It is certainly unusual the way Sage version numbers go. In just about
> any o
On 2 March 2010 19:01, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> Just a thought, would knocking out this important list of bugs be a good
> goal for Sage 5.0?
>
> - Robert
It is certainly unusual the way Sage version numbers go. In just about
any other software project Assuming the version is of the form X.Y.Z,
How about that and 90% coverage? Or 85% if 90% is too ambitious.
-Marshall
On Mar 2, 1:01 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:26 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > I've created this trac wiki page with a subset of the 10 most
> > important current bug/issues in Sage, acc
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:26 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've created this trac wiki page with a subset of the 10 most
>> important current bug/issues in Sage, according to votes in this
>> thread:
>>
>> http://trac.sagemat
On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:26 AM, William Stein wrote:
Hi,
I've created this trac wiki page with a subset of the 10 most
important current bug/issues in Sage, according to votes in this
thread:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/wiki/stab1
These are all bugs/issues that many people care
Hi,
I've created this trac wiki page with a subset of the 10 most
important current bug/issues in Sage, according to votes in this
thread:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/wiki/stab1
These are all bugs/issues that many people care about. None are
highly specialized.
So if anybody
Bjarke Hammersholt Roune wrote:
I think the silently wrong Grobner basis has a chance to result in
wrong papers, so that would be my top pick
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6472
and I agree on the startup time
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8254
I just put a commen
I think the silently wrong Grobner basis has a chance to result in
wrong papers, so that would be my top pick
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6472
and I agree on the startup time
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8254
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@
On Feb 13, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Simon King wrote:
I hope other people like these bugs as well. The problem is that there
are many developers with many different interests. So, I wonder if
there will really be bugs that get more than one or two votes.
I'm voting my favorites from others out of thi
On Feb 16, 2010, at 4:21 AM, Georg S. Weber wrote:
Copied over from the "Gentoo" thread, the favourite four of
Christopher Schwan:
- update cvxopt, ticket #6456
- remove pyprocessing, ticket #6503
- update networkx, ticket #7608
- patch combinat, ticket #7803
Though as mentioned on the other
Copied over from the "Gentoo" thread, the favourite four of
Christopher Schwan:
- update cvxopt, ticket #6456
- remove pyprocessing, ticket #6503
- update networkx, ticket #7608
- patch combinat, ticket #7803
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe f
> And i think we do not need to talk about the tab completion. That's
> really a blocker because it seriously degrades Sage's usability.
Arr, my patch has been up since 6 days, but I had forgotten to set it
as "needs review". Done. #8233.
Best,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M
The "mysterious error in doctest" is my top vote, because it really
interrupts my workflow (trying to find the broken whitespace...):
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7993
Then a few p-adic ones:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8240
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8
On 02/13/2010 08:52 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 02/13/2010 04:43 PM, Robert Miller wrote:
Graphs plot with their most outward vertices chopped off. I think I
can remember this getting fixed three, maybe four times. I fixed it
myself once, and refereed at least one other fix.
Looking on trac, you'
On 02/13/2010 04:43 PM, Robert Miller wrote:
Graphs plot with their most outward vertices chopped off. I think I
can remember this getting fixed three, maybe four times. I fixed it
myself once, and refereed at least one other fix.
Looking on trac, you'd think this was fixed, but in fact it took
On 02/13/2010 05:23 PM, Harald Schilly wrote:
On Feb 13, 11:43 pm, Robert Miller wrote:
Graphs plot with their most outward vertices chopped off.
+1 vote
* I don't know if there is a ticket for this, but i hate the "error
code: -7 ... and now it's getting ugly." of jsMath. There are really
ma
I agree with Robert's vote.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Robert Miller wrote:
> Graphs plot with their most outward vertices chopped off. I think I
> can remember this getting fixed three, maybe four times. I fixed it
> myself once, and refereed at least one other fix.
>
> Looking on trac, y
On Feb 13, 11:43 pm, Robert Miller wrote:
> Graphs plot with their most outward vertices chopped off.
+1 vote
* I don't know if there is a ticket for this, but i hate the "error
code: -7 ... and now it's getting ugly." of jsMath. There are really
many user who are confused by that. Just add a str
Graphs plot with their most outward vertices chopped off. I think I
can remember this getting fixed three, maybe four times. I fixed it
myself once, and refereed at least one other fix.
Looking on trac, you'd think this was fixed, but in fact it took me
four seconds to come up with an example wher
Just my two cents:
1. http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8258
get "make documentation" relocation-safe:
The very annoying "unnecessarily rebuilding docs" topic
2. http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7005
singular -- port to cygwin:
actually, this should be a very easy one
Hi William!
On 13 Feb., 01:32, William Stein wrote:
> Lately it seems like Sage has gotten more bugs rather than less. I
> think it's time for a stabilization release -- say Sage-4.4 -- that
> fixes the absolutely most annoying of these bugs.
Good idea!
> What are *your* top 4 bugs that are
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 02/12/2010 06:32 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Lately it seems like Sage has gotten more bugs rather than less. I
>> think it's time for a stabilization release -- say Sage-4.4 -- that
>> fixes the absolutely most annoying of t
On 02/12/2010 06:32 PM, William Stein wrote:
Hi,
Lately it seems like Sage has gotten more bugs rather than less.I
think it's time for a stabilization release -- say Sage-4.4 -- that
fixes the absolutely most annoying of these bugs.
Just curious---do you see this as the next release, bui
69 matches
Mail list logo
