Ühel kenal päeval, L, 23.04.2011 kell 10:31, kirjutas Mateusz Paprocki: > Hi, > > On 23 April 2011 09:33, Mateusz Paprocki <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On 23 April 2011 04:20, Aaron S. Meurer <asmeu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> On Apr 22, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Mateusz Paprocki wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 22 April 2011 15:39, Aaron S. Meurer <asmeu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Apr 22, 2011, at 4:23 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote: > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Ronan Lamy <ronan.l...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> >> Le vendredi 22 avril 2011 à 13:15 -0700, Ondrej Certik a écrit : > >>> >>> Hi, > >>> >>> > >>> >>> I met with Mateusz face to face and we just talked over the phone > >>> with > >>> >>> Ronan and we managed to agree on the following compromise so far: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> 1) send a pull request against master with polys12. We think that the > >>> >>> Chris' pull request should be enough, but Mateusz would like to look > >>> >>> into it > >>> >> > >>> >> I think my branch p12-fix [ > >>> https://github.com/rlamy/sympy/tree/p12-fix] > >>> >> would be a better base. Compared with p12, I squashed a few fixup > >>> >> commits and fixed some imports to make bisecting easier, and I > >>> >> backported Python2.4 compatibility fixes at the start of the branch, > >>> so > >>> >> that tests pass with 2.4 for most commits. Also, I've done the merge > >>> >> with the current master. > >>> > > >>> > Exactly, we just converged (independently) with Mateusz to the same > >>> > conclusion: let's just use this branch. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > We have discussed pro and cons for lots of hours in the afternoon with > >>> > Mateusz and we came to the following proposal: > >>> > > >>> > ===================================================== > >>> > We would like to push this branch > >>> > (https://github.com/rlamy/sympy/branches/p12-fix) into master, as it > >>> > is. > >>> > ===================================================== > >>> > > >>> > This is a huge pull request. Aaron, would you be ok with this to go in > >>> now? > >>> > > >>> > Ronan, this is a little deviation from the plan, that we agreed upon > >>> > in the phone, but here are pros/cons of the original plan: > >>> > > >>> > * nothing will happen now > >>> > * GSoC students will to use separate poly12 branch > >>> > * we will be wasting Mateusz's, Chris' and Ronan's time to keep > >>> > merging/rebasing and with uncertain future > >>> > * Mateusz has already invested too much of his life into this (for > >>> > example he has spent the whole Christmas on this) > >>> > * if he had to rebase/merge again in the future, Mateusz, who knows > >>> > polys12, but will not know all the details in the master, it will be > >>> > very difficult for him to do so > >>> > * things will continue to rot > >>> > > >>> > and the new plan (push p12-fix into master): > >>> > > >>> > * There will be only one branch > >>> > * sympy will be released before the summer, with polys12 in > >>> > * Mateusz will spend his time and go over the dozens (68) issues here: > >>> > http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/list?can=2&q=label%3APolynomial > >>> > and keep fixing them > >>> > * he will rebase his few patches, that are not in p12-fix > >>> > * we'll move on and get this polys issue behind us and all of us can > >>> > spend our time on more productive things > >>> > > >>> > I vote +1 for the new plan to push this in now. > >>> > > >>> > Ondřej > >>> > >>> I am +1, as long as Mateusz is +1 to it. He knows the branch better than > >>> anyone, so if he has reviewed it and is OK with it, and if the tests are > >>> passing, it can go in. We need to do extensive testing with the various > >>> ground types, but that will be done before the release anyway, so I think > >>> as > >>> long as there aren't any blatant test failures, this is fine. > >>> > >> > >> I'm of course +1 with pushing this as soon as possible. For now I > >> tested/doctested p12-fix with gmpy/python ground types in Python 2.5 and > >> 2.6 > >> and with python ground types in 2.4 and 2.7. There are no test/doctest > >> failures besides those which we are aware of (cse, geometry and 2.7 > >> doctests). As gmpy worked with 2.5 and 2.6, it should work also work with > >> 2.4 and 2.7 (respectively) (I will test those configurations in the > >> evening). > >> > >> > >> Also try to test 32-bit vs. 64-bit. Most errors that fail in one > >> configuration and not another fails because of that, not the ground types > >> or > >> the Python version (the exception is Python 2.4 stuff), even in the polys. > >> > > > > Testing 32-bit setup right now, but it will take ages to finish on my > > laptop. > > > > Done. Besides the standard set of failures, there is an additional one > (Python 2.7): > > ______________ sympy/solvers/tests/test_solvers.py:test_tsolve_1 > _______________ > File "/home/matt/repo/git/sympy/sympy/solvers/tests/test_solvers.py", line > 239, in test_tsolve_1 > [-((4*log(7) + > 5*LambertW(-7*2**Rational(4,5)*6**Rational(1,5)*log(7)/10))/(3*log(7)))]] > AssertionError > > which seems unrelated to polys.
Yup, I can confirm on 64-bit machine -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
