Since all the changes are basically user interface changes, I think it mostly needs interactive testing. I also think that the major issues are design, not whether it does what was intended (I fear my intentions may be misinterpretations of what people wanted).
I'm not sure what you mean by regressions? This package updates to the latest stable Jmol release and effects only two other files: jmol_lib.js (completely rewritten) and notebook_lib.js (a couple of additional calls to jmol_lib.js added to the version distributed with SAGE 4.4.3). So I think everything is "latest and greatest". I also know that this fixes Jmol from the command line, which has stopped working since the notebook was moved inside of an .egg. Jonathan Try it at: http://www.uwosh.edu/faculty_staff/gutow/Jmol_for_SageNoteBook-1.1.spkg On Jul 14, 9:22 pm, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Jonathan <gu...@uwosh.edu> wrote: > > I'd like to get wider distribution of the new interface for Jmol. I'm > > sure it is not perfect, but I'm getting no feedback with it as an > > optional .spkg. I'm pretty sure it works as well as what is in Sage > > now, so although it needs input and work, I would like to argue for > > including it, so that we can start getting feedback. > > If there aren't any regressions, I'd say lets try to get it in sooner > rather than later even if it's not totally polished yet. On that note, > do you have any good ideas on how we could test this (other than > manually?) > > - Robert -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
