#18618: sandpile revisions
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: dperkinson | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.8
Component: graph theory | Resolution:
Keywords: sandpile | Merged in:
Authors: David Perkinson | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/dperkinson/sandpile_revisions | 9b10bf5e5372b9f2dcb3dd9857304bb4dc43547e
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by dperkinson):
Replying to [comment:19 tscrim]:
> Replying to [comment:18 dperkinson]:
> > I have just pushed changes in response to the (very helpful) comments
above. The INPUT sections of the docstrings are all standardized now, as
are the NOTE, WARNING, etc., sections. ``!SandpileExamples`` has the
"new-class" style. The help functions are now automated rather than hard-
wired, as advised.
>
> Looks good. This could potentially be used as a model for other parts of
Sage.
>
> > Should I remove every instance of INPUT for which there is no input
(None) and, separately, every instance of OUTPUT for which there is no
output (None)? The documentation for developers at sagemath.org states
that every function must have an INPUT and OUTPUT statement, and further
that this "is not optional".
>
> *tries to put politics aside* These add clutter to the docstring and are
a ''very'' good exception to the rule. So yes, please remove them.
>
Just to be completely clear: suppose, for example, that I have a docstring
with None listed under INPUT and integer listed under OUTPUT. Then I
should remove the INPUT section, leaving the OUTPUT section, right?
> > At any rate, for this new version, with my local version of Sage, all
tests passed for "sage -t", and the html and pdf documentation built
without problems.
>
> However there is currently a merge conflict with the latest beta. So
you'll need to rebase it.
I am new to git, so I could use some guidance here. I have been working
in a directory called git-trac-command. The output from "git branch"
shows two branches: ``master`` and ``t/18618/sandpile_revisions``, with an
asterisk next to the latter. After my initial git push command, I have
modified files in another, separate, copy of sage. When I done making and
testing the revisions, I copy the relevant modified files (sandpile.py,
examples.py, etc.) to git-trac-command/src/sage/sandpiles. I then run
``./sage -br``, ``git add NEW FILES``, ``git commit``, and ``git trac
push``.
What is the sequence of commands I should enter to resolve the current
conflict? Also, what should I have done originally to have avoided the
conflict?
Thanks very much for your time and advice!
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18618#comment:20>
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.
