#6495: Build the reference manual incrementally
-----------------------------------------------+----------------------------
Reporter: mpatel | Owner: tba
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.0
Component: documentation | Resolution:
Keywords: | Work issues: citations
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers: Volker Braun
Authors: Mitesh Patel, John Palmieri | Merged in:
Dependencies: #12016 | Stopgaps:
-----------------------------------------------+----------------------------
Comment (by hivert):
Hi John,
Thanks for the quick answer.
> This is in pretty good shape, but it's not perfect. It undoes some of
what
> you did in #9128 (mainly because I haven't tried to rewrite the patch to
do
> it differently), and in particular, I'm not sure that the other parts of
the
> Sage documentation can use intersphinx to access information from the
> reference manual.
I'll have a look at it. Please do not hesitate to ask for some more
explanation on the hack I did with intersphinx. Is there a specific reason
why
you doubt intersphinx will work for the other part of the doc ?
> There are also issues with having to build the reference manual twice so
> that all of the references are resolved. This is not ideal.
It doesn't seem to be a huge problem with LaTeX, since this never has been
solved since years... Though I never seen a LaTeX compilation as long as
Sage's doc.
> I think that doing the reading and/or writing in parallel would be good,
but
> given the size of the reference manual, breaking it into pieces seems
> worthwhile as well.
I agree.
> If the parallel reading and writing help to cut down on the memory
usage,
> which seems to be getting out of hand, then maybe that is good enough
for
> now. (At least on sage.math, the writing part seems to take way too
long,
> so doing that in parallel might help significantly.)
I don't think it will cut down memory usage in any way. I'd rather expect
the
contrary. My solution seems to be working but since I currently for a sage
for
every single file, a lot of time is wasted in forking. I'll try to improve
it
tomorrow.
> So if you have a workable solution which accomplishes some of what is
done
> here, and perhaps does it more simply, go right ahead. I'll take a look
at
> your comments at #6255.
I don't think I really will. As I said I'll probably trade speed against
memory usage... I'll keep you in touch.
Cheers,
Florent
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6495#comment:54>
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.
