The parallel doctester doesn't error out in some instances where resource
limits are hit, and sometimes just hangs at the end waiting for the process
that failed to spawn. The fact that it works when you reduce the number of
parallel processes strongly suggests that this is what you are
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 4:52 AM, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 March 2015 at 08:50, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
On 2015-03-07, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 3:36:18 AM UTC+1, William wrote:
I tend to agree -- Having rank
This looks to me rather like Fredrik's arb system. Is it? (And has
anyone tried the numerical examples there using any of Sage's
RealField incarnations?
John
On 7 March 2015 at 07:17, Ralf Stephan gtrw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 7:57:46 AM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote:
Seems
Maybe this was not clear from my first mail: When I set the number of
processes to two or more, not a single test is started. And there are
enough resources available, at least to start some tests.
Am 07.03.2015 um 14:16 schrieb Volker Braun:
The parallel doctester doesn't error out in some
Hello Sergio,
Indeed, your branch looks very good. Could you add a doctest to the
function, however ? With your branch you add a feature (or fix a
bug, depending on how you look at it), and in both situations we try
to ilustrate the change with a new test in the function, illustrating
that
Your ticket looks in a good state to me! (I am not judging the actual
patch though).
John
On 7 March 2015 at 13:32, sergios lenis sergiosle...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi again
I did filed a new ticket http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17905 and I also
made the change and changed to need_review
On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 1:52:40 PM UTC+1, John Cremona wrote:
I think that many users would consider 1.2 to be an exact number. I
have certainly had to explain to students that if the answer to an
exact calculation is 6/5 then it is better not to convert to decimal,
despite what
It works now...
Instead of running
chmod 1777 /dev/shm
in the chroot I added the following line to /etc/schroot/default/fstab:
/dev/shm /dev/shmnonerw,bind 0 0
The strange thing is that when I remove that line from fstab and restart
the chroot now it still works.
On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 10:51:40 PM UTC+1, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
- http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12731 (integration)
A stopgap here would still allow destructive side effects. I have proposed
a solution.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Hi again
I did filed a new ticket http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17905 and I also
made the change and changed to need_review status. Just to be sure that I
did everything correctly because is the first i done I'm asking you to tell
me if everything was done the correct way.
Thank you in
On 7 March 2015 at 08:50, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
On 2015-03-07, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 3:36:18 AM UTC+1, William wrote:
I tend to agree -- Having rank be removed or raise an error and
suggest that if they want to compute ranks
Hi,
I am experimenting with building Sage in a Debian unstable chroot and
have a hard time figuring out why parallel doctesting does not work.
I wonder if it has something to do with the chroot. I already run into
the problem that /dev/shm was not user-writable and fixed that. The
script from [1]
On 2015-03-07, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 3:36:18 AM UTC+1, William wrote:
I tend to agree -- Having rank be removed or raise an error and
suggest that if they want to compute ranks they must use an exact ring
Its still educational, to teach
On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 3:36:18 AM UTC+1, William wrote:
I tend to agree -- Having rank be removed or raise an error and
suggest that if they want to compute ranks they must use an exact ring
Its still educational, to teach about floating point computation and so on.
We could raise a
I don't think this will work unless you have separate source directories,
the source directories are separate
but this is only the first caveat that comes to mind.
how it is decided, which ticket is pulled by a patchbot? by 'random' value
depending on datetime?
that would partly explain the
Before I even look closer: are you using git master
of patchbot? Have you had a look at my pull requests?
Be aware that the version advertised on the web page
may be not state-of-the-art and maintenance by the
author is rare, I.e., you will have to find your own
solutions.
--
You received this
Before I even look closer: are you using git master
of patchbot?
the advertised one. I must admit that for me it worked best to select
the tickets by hand
http://patchbot.sagemath.org/?machine=Ubuntu:12.04:x86_64:3.8.0-29-generic:groebnerstatus=needs_review
;-)
In case a patchbot state was
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Ralf Stephan gtrw...@gmail.com wrote:
Before I even look closer: are you using git master
of patchbot?
The 2.2 tarball is the most recent.
Have you had a look at my pull requests?
Be aware that the version advertised on the web page
may be not
18 matches
Mail list logo
