#12950: update to Pynac 0.2.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Reporter: burcin
| Owner: burcin
Type: defect
| Status: needs_review
Priority: major
| Milestone: sage-5.1
Component: symbolics
| Resolution:
Keywords: pynac
| Work issues: review spkg, correct some typos in the
patches
Report Upstream: N/A
| Reviewers: Jean-Pierre Flori
Authors: Volker Braun, Burcin Erocal, Jean-Pierre Flori, Titus
Nicolae, Alexei Sheplyakov | Merged in:
Dependencies:
| Stopgaps:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Changes (by burcin):
* status: new => needs_review
Comment:
Thanks for looking into this!
Replying to [comment:9 jpflori]:
> Oh, so now I'm a little lost.
> Some patches are included here and other on the original tickets...
> It's surely logical, but I just discovered that.
I tried to put all the patches required to make the new version work with
Sage on this ticket. If I didn't screw up, the rest should be
nonessential, doctests, etc. It used to be a major hassle to create
patches for each ticket separately, upload them, then make a ticket with
an spkg etc. I think this way is easier for everyone.
> Anyway, the dependencies between the tickets should be clearly stated
and written into the corresponding trac field.
> For example, do we really want to merge #11919 now? cos I don't think
reviewing this ticket will take ages...
I don't think the patch attached to #11919 is necessary. But I'm reluctant
to make changes to that ticket while this is being reviewed.
> Or, this ticket can not be merged without fixing the atan2 stuff causing
failures in revolution_plot3d which is in fact also mentioned in the
comments of #11423 .
This should depend on the yet to be opened ticket mentioned in
comment:6:ticket:11423. But, changing the plot3d stuff to handle errors in
the numerical evaluation phase is a big change (AFAIK, Titus actually had
a go at it.), and it is very much independent of a Pynac release, apart
from the minor issue that one of the doctests there happened to call
`atan2()`.
> Or, do we really want the three lines patch of #11155 there with #12950
as a dependency rather than here?
The doctests on #11155 are minor, so we left that patch out of this
ticket. Just now, I made that ticket depend on this one and gave it a
positive review.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12950#comment:10>
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.
