On Monday 01 February 2010, Nick Alexander wrote:
> > I think I've done a LOT for Sage - I would request you do not
> > purposely break the PA-RISC support in MPIR, when it clearly passes
> > all your self tests on HP-UX. I do not believe thiat is an
> > unreasonable request.
>
> I take issue wit
On 31-Jan-10, at 11:35 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2010-Jan-31 22:02:19 -0800, Nick Alexander
wrote:
Not at all. But take away mathematics, and we don't have a
*product*. Take away release management, fixing bugs, documentation,
or maintaining the web site and we have an inferior project, b
On 2010-Jan-31 22:02:19 -0800, Nick Alexander wrote:
>Not at all. But take away mathematics, and we don't have a
>*product*. Take away release management, fixing bugs, documentation,
>or maintaining the web site and we have an inferior project, but we
>still have a project. Take away supp
On 1 February 2010 05:51, Tim Lahey wrote:
> Solaris isn't exactly an "unusual" architecture. That's what he's done the
> most at
> supporting. He certainly has done "a LOT" at supporting it. I think what he's
> asking
> that Bill not purposely break FLINT since it does currently work.
If was
On 1 February 2010 06:02, Nick Alexander wrote:
>> I hate to think that the only people that are valid contributors to Sage
>> are
>> mathematicians. So, doing the release management, fixing bugs,
>> documentation, or
>> maintaining the web site aren't important?
>
> Not at all. But take away ma
By and large, we are a community of mathematicians. Correct me if
I'm wrong, but you are not contributing to the mathematical aspects
of Sage. Until that changes, your goals and my goals are only
occasionally aligned.
I hate to think that the only people that are valid contributors to
S
On 02-01-2010, at 12:45 AM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
> I take issue with the claim that you have done "a LOT" for Sage. Let me be
> clear: I appreciate the effort you put into porting Sage to other
> architectures. But I question how many people are interested in actually
> using Sage on thos
I think I've done a LOT for Sage - I would request you do not
purposely break the PA-RISC support in MPIR, when it clearly passes
all your self tests on HP-UX. I do not believe thiat is an
unreasonable request.
I take issue with the claim that you have done "a LOT" for Sage. Let
me be clear:
On 31 January 2010 14:27, Bill Hart wrote:
> I don't see any point listing HP-UX. That platform died in 2004. I saw
> its grave.
>
> Here is one of the many obituaries:
>
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1460
The latest release of HP-UX was September 2009 - 4 months
On 31 January 2010 14:27, Bill Hart wrote:
> I don't see any point listing HP-UX. That platform died in 2004. I saw
> its grave.
>
> Here is one of the many obituaries:
>
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1460
>
> I see you suggested Sage switch to GMP for an HP-UX por
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
> I don't see any point listing HP-UX. That platform died in 2004. I saw
> its grave.
>
> Here is one of the many obituaries:
>
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1460
>
> I see you suggested Sage switch to GMP for an HP
11 matches
Mail list logo
