On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Aaron S. Meurer <asmeu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 3, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have pushed this in, so the blame goes to my head. Some comments: >> >> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Christian Muise >> <christian.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> This is indeed very strange. According to issue 2046 (and my own >>>> bisecting as well) it comes from this commit: >>>> >>>> commit dcbc2da31324e98c9cb3a4bf17c50f029774ae06 >>>> Author: Sebastian Krämer <basti...@gmail.com> >>>> Date: Wed May 5 22:48:18 2010 +0200 >>>> >>>> Implement fast atomic substitution. >>>> >>>> * The main code is in Basic._subs_dict >>>> * It is used automatically by subs when possible. >>>> * Where the default substitution is not good enough this method is >>>> overridden. >>>> * Because of hashing problems (different hash although equal) one >>>> example in the modules documentation has to be changed. >>>> * This commit only couples it very loose to subs. By rewriting subs a >>>> little and integrating it better there will be some more speed >>>> improvement. >>> >>> It looks like the pull into the main repo (sympy/sympy/master) did some >>> wonky things. Attached is a view of gitk from my local master. Maybe a >> >> No, it was there in your pull request, I remember it, and you can >> still check it easily here: >> >> http://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/2 >> >> I thought it was somehow needed for your branch, and also you wrote >> there (feel free to go on that link to check it): >> >> """ >> As per discussion 0 this branch, containing the modifications over the >> summer for Google's SoC program, is ready to be merged in. A number of >> iterations has already gone into getting it up to shape, but I'm open >> to more suggestions if there are any. >> >> Thanks. Cheers >> """ >> >> So I somehow believed the branch is ok to go in. Which is my fault, >> and I apologize. Next time I'll wait to get approvals from the >> reviewers too, so that they can say +1 or -1 to the final branch going >> in. > > Maybe we should have some rule that requires more than one reviewer to sign > off for large branches such as this one.
In this case I think it would help to get final +1 on the final branch going in, so that we can eliminate last minute mistakes with rebasing. What I should have waited. > >> >> Aaron, can you please revert that patch? > > I already fixed everything earlier today. I actually screwed up myself > because I didn't realize that SymTuple was moved to the core, so I had to > partially revert my reversion. But everything should be good now, at least > with respect to that (unless some other commit snuck in there). Thanks! Ondrej -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy-patches" group. To post to this group, send email to sympy-patc...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sympy-patches+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy-patches?hl=en.
