#5396: Wrapping lcalc library
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Reporter: rishi | Owner: rishi
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.3.4
Component: number theory | Keywords: lcalc
Author: rishi, ylchapuy | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: John Cremona, David Kirkby | Merged:
Work_issues: |
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Comment(by rishi):
Replying to [comment:72 drkirkby]:
> Replying to [comment:70 rishi]:
> > Regarding overwriting older packages, John Cremona asked that I do
exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting. Please see his posting
from couple of months ago in this very ticket. I will include a one line
description of p3. p3 was just reverting from p2 to p1.
> I'm really confused here. I'm going to cc Minh onto this, as he knows
more about version numbers than me, but I believe the version being
proposed is incorrect. * 6 months ago you added 'L-1.23.spkg' to this
ticket. So was that supposed to be brand new package? Currently there is
no package in Sage called 'L'. In any case it should '''not''' have been
attacked to the trac server, but instead a link provided to a place where
it could be found.
Please read the comments in this ticket.
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5396#comment:39
> * There are numerous other attachments. Assuming all these changes are
based on top of version 1.23 of lcalc, and not a version with a date code
of'20080205', then I believe all these changes should be put into
lcalc-1.23. There is no need for p0, p1, p2, p3 or p4. Patch levels should
be incremented as a result of newer versions committed to Sage - not as a
result of reviewer comments.
> * If all these changes are based on the version of lcalc in Sage,
lcalc-20080205.p4.spkg, then the updated version should be called
lcalc-20080205.p5.spkg.
It is not based on lcalc-20080205.
> Perhaps you could briefly summerise what this is, and why it should be
called a particular version. Why was it orriginally going to be called L?
With a highly technical package and 70 comments spanning 6-months, it is
hard to decipher it all. But I believe something is wrong here, but would
welcome some comments from Minh.
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5396#comment:39
> Dave
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5396#comment:73>
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.
