#13260: Add tutorials and quickstarts from PREP workshops to standard
documentation
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Reporter: kcrisman | Owner: mvngu
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.3
Component: documentation | Resolution:
Keywords: | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers:
Authors: Karl-Dieter Crisman | Merged in:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Changes (by {'newvalue': u'Karl-Dieter Crisman', 'oldvalue': ''}):
* cc: ddrake, wdj, mhampton, benjaminfjones, pong (added)
* status: new => needs_review
* author: => Karl-Dieter Crisman
Old description:
> We've long needed a substantial, graded set of tutorials starting from
> absolute scratch geared toward new mathematical users of Sage who do not
> have any particular programming background. In the PREP workshops the
> last three years, such a series of tutorials, including eight
> disciplinary "quickstarts" and an intro to interacts, have taken good
> shape, and are ready for inclusion.
New description:
We've long needed a substantial, graded set of tutorials starting from
absolute scratch geared toward new mathematical users of Sage who do not
have any particular programming background. In the PREP workshops the
last three years, such a series of tutorials, including eight disciplinary
"quickstarts" and an intro to interacts, have taken good shape, and are
ready for inclusion.
Apply [attachment:trac_13260-tutorials.patch],
[attachment:trac_13260-quickstarts.patch], and
[attachment:trac_13260-images.patch].
The first patch has just the main tutorials, the second has the
disciplinary "quickstarts", and the third should only have the image
files.
Recommended reviewing method is to apply all three patches, build the
documentation, and then look at it. Then one can refer to the relevant
patch in review.
{{{
sage -docbuild prep html
sage -docbuild website html
}}}
is what I usually do.
--
Comment:
Apply [attachment:trac_13260-tutorials.patch],
[attachment:trac_13260-quickstarts.patch], and
[attachment:trac_13260-images.patch].
Recommended reviewing method is to apply all three patches, build the
documentation, and then look at it. Then one can refer to the relevant
patch in review.
{{{
sage -docbuild prep html
sage -docbuild website html
}}}
is what I usually do.
Putting author as me because I did the work on actually turning it all
into .rst files, but the project authors in conf.py are all three of the
original authors from the 2010 PREP. For positive review, I would want at
least one person NOT involved as a leader in the 2010 or 2011 workshops to
review this, but of course they are also welcome to give this partial
review! ''Participants'' in said workshops would be more than welcome to
help give positive review.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13260#comment:1>
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.
