#16362: Orthogonal Polar Graph
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: ncohen | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: positive_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: graph theory | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Nathann Cohen | Reviewers: Dima Pasechnik
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
public/ticket/16362 | ff7d3387b4436411ed6785e2a3b6c5c37f2ca1f6
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
> The code is as fast in my version as it is in yours.
Of course not. Your code has a penalty on first run, mine does not.
(just for the joke: do you also profile cached functions with %timeit ?)
> The disadvantage of your code is that it is entirely possible that the
pexpect interface gets (half)broken yet again.
1) It is not broken, until proven otherwise
2) A LOT of code in Sage uses it. If you consider this a bug, write a
ticket to address that.
> As well, let me point out that I find your suggestion that you will get
rid of my changes in some way that I won't notice very, very worrying.
This is not the way things are meant to be done.
You see it wrong again.
Right now, you are trying to force a commit (libgapify) into Sage even
though I do not agree with it (me, the reviewer of your changes). This,
indeed, is not the way things are meant to be done. Since when do people
add stuff in Sage without getting the agreement of somebody else ? This is
precisely what the review process is.
As you refuse discussion on the subject, I can either give up the code of
a useful ticket or give in to your blackmail (your libgapify commit Vs my
graph constructor) and say that I give your code a positive review.
Admittedly, I prefer this version of the code to no constructor at all.
Secondly, it is fortunate that mistakes in Sage can be fixed, and if
another reviewer thinks that it is stupid to lose time for no gain then
this will be undone. The review process.
Note how I will have to get the reviewer's agreement while you are just
imposing your own view here, when I repeatedly asked to you to remove it
and without anybody else's agreement for your commit.
This, clearly, is abnormal.
> And, finally, the design of the these tickets is very suboptimal,
anyway, as they should be done with a backend that can take advantage of
rich symmetries of the objects. I think I explained this on more than one
occasion.
I agree with you, but this backend does not exist in Sage. Did you miss
this detail ?
I don't even know how to code such a thing. So if this is a problem for
you, stop raving and implement it. I would be glad to have it too.
> You might be surprised to find how many people find your outburst like
this one very immature.
The number of people who think that I am immature has no bounds. I
definitely remember that I used to care, a long time ago. Fortunately,
with time I figured out that they were all crazy, which simplified a lot
of things.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16362#comment:45>
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
