#6441: [with patch, needs work] Charpoly (plus adjoint and det)
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Reporter: spancratz | Owner: somebody
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.1.2
Component: linear algebra | Keywords: charpoly, division-free
Reviewer: | Author: Sebastian Pancratz
Merged: |
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Comment(by rbeezer):
Hi Sebastian,
I think everything is in here, but the patches aren't quite right.
"a" patch is just a generic patch/diff file, not a Mercurial patch.
Try the following (which worked for me)
1. Make a fresh clone (mine is called df-4).[[BR]]
2. sage: hg_sage.apply( "the-a-patch-file" )[[BR]]
3. Type in a commit message when asked.[[BR]]
4. Build and test.[[BR]]
5. sage: hg_sage.export( change-set-number, "file-name-for-patch" )[[BR]]
I did the first four steps, and would have done step 5 for you, but then
the patch would have my name, not yours.
BTW, do you want the "[ui]" bit in your name in your .hgrc file?
"b" patch is a Mercurial patch, but still has the 3-D-index version of
{{{_charpoly_df()}}}. Here's what I did next:
1. At system prompt: cd devel/sage-df-4[[BR]]
2. At system prompt: patch -p1 < file-name-of-b-patch[[BR]]
(makes the changes, but no changeset is created, no commit message)[[BR]]
3. Then I edited sage/matrix/matrix2.pyx by copying the entire
{{{_charpoly_df()}}} routine out of {{{20090821_Charpoly.patch}}},
replacing the entire 3-index version with the 2-index version.[[BR]]
4. Build and test as usual.[[BR]]
5. Commit, export.[[BR]]
As above, I'd have built a patch from this, but it'd have my name, not
yours.
I was able to pass all tests this way, but I can't be certain that the "b"
patch has everything it should have, especially since the most important
part was not the latest version. Can you duplicate the procedures above
to make proper patches with your name on them AND especially review what
you build to be sure it really has everything in it that it should have?
I don't think I can be trusted to recognize what is old and what is new
unless it is pretty obvious.
You can repeat step 3 on the "b" patch if you see anything else that needs
fixing.
With a couple of proper patches that pass all tests and build the docs,
we'll be done.
Rob
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6441#comment:28>
Sage <http://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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
