#13378: Do not cache the non-existence of coerce/convert map too often, and do
not
pretend that there is a conversion where it doesn't make sense at all
----------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
Reporter: SimonKing | Owner: robertwb
Type: defect | Status:
positive_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.7
Component: coercion | Resolution:
Keywords: coercion conversion object cache | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers: Nils
Bruin
Authors: Simon King | Merged in:
Dependencies: #12313, #12215 | Stopgaps:
----------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
Comment (by jdemeyer):
I guess it's a matter of definitions. I consider "merge with" as an
equivalence relation (symmetric and transitive). Given that #12313 is to
be merged with #13378 and #12215 is to be merged with #12313, the logical
conclusion is that these 3 tickets need to be merged together. I didn't
use the phrase "merge with" here, only to make the order of merging more
clear (first #12215, then #12313, then #13378).
> no need to repeat that dependence here.
I find it easier to have the full set of dependencies written down.
Consider tickets A, B and C where A and B have positive review, C needs
review, A depends on B and B depends on C. If the implicit dependency of
A on C is not written down, then it's not obvious to the release manager
that A cannot currently be merged.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13378#comment:24>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.