Re: [sage-devel] Re: approve github actions

[David Roe]

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 9:13 PM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:

>
>
> On 14 May 2024 22:55:01 BST, "julian...@fsfe.org" 
> wrote:
> >I granted "write" permissions to you. That seems to be the required
> >permission to approve workflow runs.
>
> IIRC, such permissions are automatic for the members of triage team.
>

That's incorrect.  Triage is a lower permission level than Write; see here

for more details.
David

Could you check that Martin is there?
> >
> >Can you check that it works now?
> >
> >julian
> >
> >PS: If this should be done differently, please let me know and I'll
> revoke
> >that permission again :)
> >
> >On Tuesday, May 14, 2024 at 11:55:53 PM UTC+3 axio...@yahoo.de wrote:
> >
> >> Could I have the right to approve github actions?
> >>
> >> Otherwise, mentoring the GSOC student over github is a pain.
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> Martin (mantepse)
> >>
> >
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/0F49C387-A1D9-4517-A840-14DFD2A84BA9%40gmail.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3Du8-sAxM8XS1ufk6xh%3Do%3DzhusPebj1kKhsXANx0FmnMw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] wasm

[David Roe]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 3:29 AM 'Doris Behrendt' via sage-devel <
sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> My team is about to develop a webapp where we want to factor polynomials
> with coefficients in ZZ.
> We want to offer a dropdown menu where the user can select the base ring
> and then the factorisation changes interactively. We use React and
> JavaScript and also Web Assembly, e.g. for our Web-OpenSSL here:
> https://www.cryptool.org/en/cto/openssl/
>
> Sage offers the command change_ring, we did not find a JavaScript Library
> that has this functionality. So I thought, perhaps we could look for
> solutions where Sage is used together with web assembly.
>

What base rings do you intend to support?  The hard part is the factoring
itself, not the change_ring (which basically only requires that you have a
reasonable internal representation for that base ring).  Reasonable base
rings that I can think of:
* Finite fields GF(p) with p prime
* Finite fields GF(q) with q a prime power
* Complex numbers
* Real numbers
* p-adic numbers for prime p
* Number fields
* the integers themselves
* Z/N for N not prime (there are tricky issues here, since factorization is
no longer unique)

Sage mainly uses other open source C libraries to carry out these
factorizations, so you would need to be able to port these to wasm as
well.  The underlying C libraries used vary by base field, and include
pari, FLINT, NTL and maybe others.  You can figure out what is used by each
base ring using the get_systems function (note the warning displayed; I
haven't recompiled my sage):

sage: from sage.misc.citation import get_systems
sage: R. = ZZ[]
sage: f = (x^4 + 2)*(x^3 - 3)
sage: get_systems("factor(f)")
:1: UserWarning: get_systems() requires
Cython profiling to be enabled, otherwise the results will be very
unreliable. Rebuild Sage with the environment variable 'SAGE_PROFILE=yes'
to enable profiling.
  get_systems("factor(f)")
['FLINT']

Finally, you should think about what scope you want to support in terms of
degree (and, to a lesser extent, size of coefficients), as well as whether
you want to allow non-monic polynomials.

Good luck!
David

After some research I have the impression that there are some proofs of
> concept, but there is nothing actively developed?
>
> Since I am not a programmer and nobody in my team is a mathematician (so
> my developers don't know Sage), I kindly ask on this list for any hints how
> we could proceed?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Doris
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/08830539-4D13-4E63-80E0-4F1F788B1657%40me.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mC%3Db1sx-ZFgUEZN6Tkkc2Shh08eT98e%2B747%2BY%3D0P8Pew%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Revert merged PR with unreviewed dependencies

[David Roe]

The vote was 8-4.  I'm setting the PR back to positive review.
David

On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 5:04 AM Volker Braun  wrote:

> It was merged because it was positively reviewed.
>
> Neither I nor the merge script reads every ticket description and looks
> through the text whether any dependency is mentioned that has not yet been
> reviewed. We can try to build such a Rube Goldberg machine, but I would
> very much argue against it. Just go with how github works, which is
> positive review = ready to merge and "files changed" shows the actual
> changes that this PR implements. Anything else will just prevent us from
> using standard tooling in the future. If anything introduce a "preliminary
> positive review" tag that gets replaced with actual positive review when
> the dependencies are in.
>
> On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 9:50:35 AM UTC+2 Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>
>> +1 for merging #37796.
>>
>> Volker, I would appreciate if you could say something about how #36964
>> was merged. It would be useful to understand the process with merging this,
>> rather than guessing the intent. Additionally, I thought we didn't merge
>> things when the dependencies have not been merged (or merged
>> simultaneously)? (This is why I am voting for reverting.)
>>
>> Best,
>> Travis
>>
>> On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 9:57:25 AM UTC+9 G. M.-S. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> -1
>>>
>>> If something has been done that should be undone, I very much trust
>>> Volker to take care of it when he can, without the need for endless
>>> time-consuming discussions and votes.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Guillermo
>>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 17:54, David Roe  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> Sage has had a review process for over 15 years, but a combination of
>>>> recent changes has led to the merging of a PR into sage-10.4.beta3 of a
>>>> change (#36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>) that I
>>>> believe should not (yet) have been merged.  In #37796
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796> I created a PR to revert
>>>> the change, which was opposed by the author of the original change.  After 
>>>> some
>>>> voting
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796#issuecomment-2053675535>
>>>> using the disputed PR policy
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/IgBYUJl33SQ/m/kvmOlVb1AQAJ>,
>>>> Matthias has asked
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796#issuecomment-2061926393>
>>>> for a vote on sage-devel about this reversion, in accordance with the
>>>> section that "This process is intended as a lower-intensity method for
>>>> resolving disagreements, and full votes on sage-devel override the process
>>>> described below."  I am therefore asking you to vote (+1 means merge
>>>> #37796 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796> in order to
>>>> revert #36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>).
>>>>
>>>> First, here are the relevant parts of the history of this particular
>>>> change:
>>>>
>>>> - #36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964> was created on
>>>> December 25 by Matthias, positively reviewed
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964#pullrequestreview-1796972215>
>>>> by Kwankyu on Decemebr 27, disputed, received enough votes
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964#issuecomment-2041646521>
>>>> to get a positive review on April 7, and was merged
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964#issuecomment-2053520605>
>>>> by Volker on April 12.  It had dependencies: #37667,
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37667>#36951
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951>, and #36676
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676>.  While #37667
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37667> had positive review and
>>>> was already been merged, the other two were still disputed: they had
>>>> received an initial positive review but others objected and discussion was
>>>> ongoing.
>>>>
>>>> - #37667 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37667> is not disputed.
>>>>
>>>> - #36951 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951> was created on
>>>> December 23 by Matthia

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: Revert merged PR with unreviewed dependencies

[David Roe]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 1:51 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> David, none of this explains the misleading use of the word "unreviewed".


I believe that it does.  If there was confusion, hopefully this exchange
can help clarify it for others.
David


> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 10:47:36 AM UTC-7 David Roe wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 1:43 PM Matthias Koeppe 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I will first note that the title of this post is misleading.
>>> Everything that was merged has been reviewed -- as noted, many months
>>> ago.
>>>
>>
>> I agree that everything was reviewed.  However review refers not only to
>> the action of giving approval (which was done), but also to the status of
>> the PR as indicated by Positive Review, Needs Review, and Needs Work
>> labels.  This is the standard used by the release management scripts, as
>> well as our community understanding of what it means for a PR to be ready
>> for merging.  Under this definition, #36951 and #36676 did not have
>> positive review at the time that #36964 was merged.
>> David
>>
>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 8:54:26 AM UTC-7 David Roe wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> Sage has had a review process for over 15 years, but a combination of
>>>> recent changes has led to the merging of a PR into sage-10.4.beta3 of a
>>>> change (#36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>) that I
>>>> believe should not (yet) have been merged.  In #37796
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796> I created a PR to revert
>>>> the change, which was opposed by the author of the original change.  After 
>>>> some
>>>> voting
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796#issuecomment-2053675535>
>>>> using the disputed PR policy
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/IgBYUJl33SQ/m/kvmOlVb1AQAJ>,
>>>> Matthias has asked
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796#issuecomment-2061926393>
>>>> for a vote on sage-devel about this reversion, in accordance with the
>>>> section that "This process is intended as a lower-intensity method for
>>>> resolving disagreements, and full votes on sage-devel override the process
>>>> described below."  I am therefore asking you to vote (+1 means merge
>>>> #37796 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796> in order to
>>>> revert #36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>).
>>>>
>>>> First, here are the relevant parts of the history of this particular
>>>> change:
>>>>
>>>> - #36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964> was created on
>>>> December 25 by Matthias, positively reviewed
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964#pullrequestreview-1796972215>
>>>> by Kwankyu on Decemebr 27, disputed, received enough votes
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964#issuecomment-2041646521>
>>>> to get a positive review on April 7, and was merged
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964#issuecomment-2053520605>
>>>> by Volker on April 12.  It had dependencies: #37667,
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37667>#36951
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951>, and #36676
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676>.  While #37667
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37667> had positive review and
>>>> was already been merged, the other two were still disputed: they had
>>>> received an initial positive review but others objected and discussion was
>>>> ongoing.
>>>>
>>>> - #37667 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37667> is not disputed.
>>>>
>>>> - #36951 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951> was created on
>>>> December 23 by Matthias, positively reviewed
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951#pullrequestreview-1799928234>
>>>> by Kwankyu on January 1, disputed, received enough votes
>>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951#issuecomment-2041636273>
>>>> (3-1) to change to positive review on April 7, had a clarification to bring
>>>> back to (3-2) and remove positive review, then was included in the merge of
>>>> #36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>. On April 13,
>>>> John Palmieri voted in favor
>>>&g

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: Revert merged PR with unreviewed dependencies

[David Roe]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 1:43 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> I will first note that the title of this post is misleading.
> Everything that was merged has been reviewed -- as noted, many months ago.
>

I agree that everything was reviewed.  However review refers not only to
the action of giving approval (which was done), but also to the status of
the PR as indicated by Positive Review, Needs Review, and Needs Work
labels.  This is the standard used by the release management scripts, as
well as our community understanding of what it means for a PR to be ready
for merging.  Under this definition, #36951 and #36676 did not have
positive review at the time that #36964 was merged.
David

On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 8:54:26 AM UTC-7 David Roe wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> Sage has had a review process for over 15 years, but a combination of
>> recent changes has led to the merging of a PR into sage-10.4.beta3 of a
>> change (#36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>) that I
>> believe should not (yet) have been merged.  In #37796
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796> I created a PR to revert
>> the change, which was opposed by the author of the original change.  After 
>> some
>> voting
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796#issuecomment-2053675535>
>> using the disputed PR policy
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/IgBYUJl33SQ/m/kvmOlVb1AQAJ>,
>> Matthias has asked
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796#issuecomment-2061926393>
>> for a vote on sage-devel about this reversion, in accordance with the
>> section that "This process is intended as a lower-intensity method for
>> resolving disagreements, and full votes on sage-devel override the process
>> described below."  I am therefore asking you to vote (+1 means merge
>> #37796 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796> in order to revert
>> #36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>).
>>
>> First, here are the relevant parts of the history of this particular
>> change:
>>
>> - #36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964> was created on
>> December 25 by Matthias, positively reviewed
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964#pullrequestreview-1796972215>
>> by Kwankyu on Decemebr 27, disputed, received enough votes
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964#issuecomment-2041646521> to
>> get a positive review on April 7, and was merged
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964#issuecomment-2053520605> by
>> Volker on April 12.  It had dependencies: #37667,
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37667>#36951
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951>, and #36676
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676>.  While #37667
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37667> had positive review and
>> was already been merged, the other two were still disputed: they had
>> received an initial positive review but others objected and discussion was
>> ongoing.
>>
>> - #37667 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37667> is not disputed.
>>
>> - #36951 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951> was created on
>> December 23 by Matthias, positively reviewed
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951#pullrequestreview-1799928234>
>> by Kwankyu on January 1, disputed, received enough votes
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951#issuecomment-2041636273>
>> (3-1) to change to positive review on April 7, had a clarification to bring
>> back to (3-2) and remove positive review, then was included in the merge of
>> #36964 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964>. On April 13, John
>> Palmieri voted in favor
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951#issuecomment-2053686090>,
>> so the current vote stands at 4-2, enough for the 2-1 threshold in order to
>> get positive review under the disputed voting process.
>>
>> - #36676 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676> was created on
>> November 8 by Matthias, positively reviewed
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-1813306867> by
>> John Palmieri on November 15, and then disputed.  The most recent count was 
>> 6-4
>> in favor
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2050362637>
>> (falling short of the 2-1 ratio needed under the disputed voting process);
>> since then I voted
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2050531437> in
>> favor, it was included in the merge of #36964
>>

[sage-devel] VOTE: Revert merged PR with unreviewed dependencies

[David Roe]

Hi all,
Sage has had a review process for over 15 years, but a combination of
recent changes has led to the merging of a PR into sage-10.4.beta3 of a
change (#36964 ) that I
believe should not (yet) have been merged.  In #37796
 I created a PR to revert the
change, which was opposed by the author of the original change.  After some
voting 
using the disputed PR policy
,
Matthias has asked
 for a
vote on sage-devel about this reversion, in accordance with the section
that "This process is intended as a lower-intensity method for resolving
disagreements, and full votes on sage-devel override the process described
below."  I am therefore asking you to vote (+1 means merge #37796
 in order to revert #36964
).

First, here are the relevant parts of the history of this particular change:

- #36964  was created on
December 25 by Matthias, positively reviewed

by Kwankyu on Decemebr 27, disputed, received enough votes
 to
get a positive review on April 7, and was merged
 by
Volker on April 12.  It had dependencies: #37667,
#36951
, and #36676
.  While #37667
 had positive review and was
already been merged, the other two were still disputed: they had received
an initial positive review but others objected and discussion was ongoing.

- #37667  is not disputed.

- #36951  was created on
December 23 by Matthias, positively reviewed

by Kwankyu on January 1, disputed, received enough votes
 (3-1)
to change to positive review on April 7, had a clarification to bring back
to (3-2) and remove positive review, then was included in the merge of
#36964 . On April 13, John
Palmieri voted in favor
, so
the current vote stands at 4-2, enough for the 2-1 threshold in order to
get positive review under the disputed voting process.

- #36676  was created on
November 8 by Matthias, positively reviewed
 by
John Palmieri on November 15, and then disputed.  The most recent count was 6-4
in favor

(falling short of the 2-1 ratio needed under the disputed voting process);
since then I voted
 in
favor, it was included in the merge of #36964
, and then Martin voted
against.


At issue is the PR #36676 ,
where discussion was still ongoing when #36964
 was merged.  The reversion of
this PR proposed is purely for process reasons (I voted in favor of #36676
 before all this happened!).
The 5 Sage developers opposed to #36676
 deserve to have our processes
followed.  What went wrong?

I think what happened resulted from a combination of the new disputed
voting process, mismatched expectations around dependencies after the move
to github, and Volker's release management scripts.  Several developers
privately expressed concern prior to this merge about exactly this outcome,
and I reassured them that dependencies would be taken into account.
Unfortunately, dependencies are now (unlike in trac) just a text section of
the PR comment, and the release scripts only see the label.


There are lots of things to discuss around this chain of events.  I ask
that everyone keep this thread focused on whether to merge #37796
 in order to revert #36964
.  Some other topics, and
places I suggest for discussing them:
- Ways to improve or eliminate the disputed voting process: I suggest
Dima's recent thread 

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Proposal (redo): Make python_build (and its dependency pyproject_hooks) a standard package

[David Roe]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 5:50 PM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 10:01 PM François Bissey 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 16/04/24 04:41, kcrisman wrote:
>> > SageMath has several other long-term contributors who also package
>> > software. We're all roughly on the same page about what it would
>> take
>> > to fix the sage installation for end users.
>> >
>> >
>> > And some of these people (perhaps kiwifb?) have not been as directly
>> > involved in some of the recent disputes.   Maybe there is a path
>> forward
>> > (I also presume the CoCC is thinking about this).
>>
>> I would say I have involved myself too much already. I am regularly
>> asked to review some of those tickets that are disputed or become
>> disputed.
>>
>> It floods my inbox and makes my heart sink.
>>
>
> Well, on the latest disputed PR
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796 I proposed
> to stop with this all and go back to getting the PRs approved by consensus.
>
> Should we call an urgent general vote on this?
>

I'm happy to discuss whether we should change course on this, but it should
be in another thread.

On the original topic, I'm +1 for including python_build.
David

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mhaDuY_0VGB5nT0xOUvTeGfdSj8MF%3DFR44fnygtzTiOw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] (Re-)building an inclusive SageMath community. II: Recognizing and fighting abuse, bullying, disrespect

[David Roe]

The Sage Code of Conduct Committee shares the goal of making sage
development welcoming and pleasant.  If you do not feel comfortable
responding to the whole list, you are welcome to write to us, either
collectively at sage-cond...@googlegroups.com or individually.  We welcome
input on how the community is currently falling short, even if you do not
have specific solutions.

The Sage Code of Conduct Committee
David Roe
J-P Labbe
John Palmieri
Julian Rüth
Nils Bruin
Viviane Pons

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 4:11 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> Trigger Warning: In this post, I will discuss topics that can make some
> people uncomfortable; in particular readers who have themselves been the
> target of abuse, bullying, and disrespect in the past. (I apologize if I
> have omitted this Trigger Warning in previous posts that touched these
> topics.)
>
> My previous post in the series:
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/OeN8o14s6Jc/m/ChnpijP3AgAJ,
> titled "I: How we talk about past, current, future contributions" appeared
> over a month ago.
>
> Unfortunately, this post has been met with a complete silence. I
> argue that this is but one symptom of a disease of our Sage community:
> The community has been severely damaged by toxicity, not just by the
> most recent excesses but already over a much longer term. Possible
> other symptoms:
> (1) The lack of visible diversity in our community.
> (2) Silence when harmful conduct is happening in plain sight.
> (3) The disengagement from matters of community, governance, leadership.
>
> I argue that we need active long-term steps to rebuild a
> healthy, inclusive community.
>
> Rebuilding our community has to be rooted in consideration for the weakest
> in our community, the voices that have already disappeared from our
> community, and for the targets of abuse, bullying, and disrespect.
>
> The question that we need to ask is: What is necessary so that they
> feel comfortable and empowered to participate?
>
> I argue that it has to start with
> - recognizing and acknowledging the existence and the asymmetric nature of
> abuse, bullying, and disrespect,
> - understanding the specific damage that all of these do on individuals
> (hint: targets of abuse do not just get "upset") and on our community,
> - learning about the techniques and mechanisms of abusers and abuse (for
> example: keeping plausible deniability and "playing the victim" are
> well-known parts of the tool set of abusers),
> - affirming as a community the goal of building an inclusive community in
> which abuse, bullying, aggression, disrespect, harassment are shunned.
>
> What is counterproductive:
> - Euphemisms such as describing abusive comments as a "heated discussion".
> - Well-meaning advice to targets of abuse to take a break.
> - Giving abusers the benefit of the doubt.
> - Reprimanding targets of abuse for calling out abuse.
> - Both-siding bullying with anti-bullying activism.
>
> Matthias
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/c23354f9-1ec0-4421-a495-1b0620faed4fn%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/c23354f9-1ec0-4421-a495-1b0620faed4fn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mOkGAALFAeXAKsUmEupsPAzZrPw%3DscAnF-%2BBn_x_YFNA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

[David Roe]

We have received messages from several people that the level of discord on
display between Dima and Matthias makes them feel uncomfortable
participating on this email list. To protect the community from this
acrimony, we are for now restricting Dima and Matthias to moderated
contributions on sage-devel.  We are sad in taking this step, and are
continuing to work privately with both Dima and Matthias to resolve this
conflict.
David
for the sage-conduct committee

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:30 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> Reported.
>
> On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 3:39:56 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 6:14 PM Matthias Koeppe 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 6:49:11 AM UTC-7 julian...@fsfe.org
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We have carefully reviewed [...]
>>>
>>> We therefore disagree with characterizing opposing opinions as
>>> “artificial friction”, “hostile demands”, or an “attempt to sabotage”.
>>> Such allegations will have no effect other than to antagonize the other
>>> party. This is not helpful in fostering constructive debate.
>>>
>>>
>>> Julian, please, that's highly inappropriate. I'm not characterizing
>>> opposing *opinions*.
>>>
>>
>> Matthias, you keep characterizing my input into discussions as
>> "persistent abusive conduct", see e.g. your
>> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2048352139
>>
>> I demand a public apology, and a lift of the block on GitHub.
>> Else Matthias should be banned from SageMath for a while, if not
>> permanently. Enough is enough.
>>
>> Dima
>>
>>
>>> With this terminology I'm describing the modes of existing, persistent,
>>> non-constructive *actions* on these PRs by others.
>>>
>>
>>> These are not "allegations"; what I am describing has been happening in
>>> plain sight, is fully documented, and has been reported to the sage-abuse
>>> and CoCC committees. As you know, some of these have already led to
>>> sanctions by the committees, while I am still waiting for acknowledgment
>>> (and clear actions) regarding numerous reported violations of our code of
>>> conduct (and reviewing code) by the current committee.
>>>
>>> I do understand that the new committee is still learning how to
>>> recognize and handle abuse; it's a complicated and challenging topic to
>>> master. In the meantime, as I have asked the committee in private already,
>>> more thoughtful restraint in issuing public reprimands is necessary.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "sage-devel" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/2bdbf209-edc2-4a0d-9b4c-de1c665d406bn%40googlegroups.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/4ec2449a-90cc-479a-be88-723f7f9135cfn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nieEkQP%3DZLTv_ZQge%3Dc7%2BD7zbbjuseRK3tRy%2Bakj_-hA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Vote: changes to Sage's Code of Conduct

[David Roe]

+1.

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 4:09 PM 'Martin R' via sage-devel <
sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> I just re-read the whole thing, and I'm quite impressed!  Thank you!
>
> On Thursday 21 March 2024 at 19:03:34 UTC+1 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
>
>> +1.
>>
>> On Thursday, March 21, 2024 at 9:51:40 AM UTC-7 John H Palmieri wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Sage community,
>>>
>>> As announced at
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/Xf6dbPLmKPY/m/p88auKlBAwAJ, I
>>> propose some changes to the Code of Conduct. Those changes have been
>>> discussed and modified based on feedback from several developers: visit
>>> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37501 for details. Those changes
>>> are now ready for a vote here on sage-devel.
>>>
>>> Please vote: do you approve the changes to the Code of Conduct proposed
>>> at https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37501? Please vote on or
>>> before March 31.
>>>
>>> In case you want a summary: the old code of conduct was pretty short, so
>>> some details were added, and whole new sections were added. The proposed
>>> changes were greatly inspired by similar documents from the SciPy and
>>> NumFOCUS projects, and the proposed code now includes sections on
>>> diversity, how to report potential violations,  names of the committee
>>> members, and what is necessary to amend the document. There is also a new
>>> document, a manual for the Code of Conduct Committee, which describes what
>>> that committee does and what actions it might take to respond to reports.
>>> That document is a modified version of SciPy's corresponding document.
>>>
>>> --
>>> John
>>>
>>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/693ffee7-2df4-416a-9ae2-79f6c061a3fan%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3Dk%2Bpjsg1GMoETOh%2BtMRomKH%3DdKr-abBY2%3DO2vvCJM0og%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

[David Roe]

This vote has passed, and I've added a "CI Fix" label
 on github.  I am
not going to have time to implement changes to our CI infrastructure in the
near future, but others are welcome to do so.
David

On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 1:37 PM seb@gmail.com 
wrote:

> +1
>
> Eric Gourgoulhon schrieb am Sonntag, 10. März 2024 um 16:58:42 UTC+1:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Eric.
>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/d35c59ad-b5a6-4fb7-9a2f-8d0adc238ce3n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_kLCfTTP6qU4p07wjJ_suZbztSvqNfQsqeX%2BDDhSzycoA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Vote: Sage Code of Conduct

[David Roe]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:10 AM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:

> It's very important to note that with multiwinner approval voting, merely
> counting the votes per candidate and picking the top ones can lead to
> rather unfair results
> (unlike in the single winner case).
>
> For instance, if we elect k=3 candidates out of 6, say, $a,b,c,d,e,f$, and
> out of N=19 people, 10 vote for $a,b,c$, and 9 - for $d,e,f$, then, with
> approval voting, $a,b,c$ get elected (as $a,b,c$, get 10 votes each, more
> than $d,e,f$), and almost half the voters, 9 out of 10, get no
> representation of their views.
> This is obviously bad - in such a case a fair outcome would be something
> like $a,b,d$. Here "fair" has to be quantified, of course.
> I've posted some details (and pointed at some solutions) on this here:
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37501#issuecomment-2004121053
>
> It would be interesting to get the anonymised returned ballots and see if
> we did well on this occasion.
> As well, adjustments ought to be made along the lines outlined above.
>

The committee has agreed to release anonymized voting records, since the
benefit gained for picking a better system for future votes outweighs the
privacy risk (we've anonymized both voters and candidates).  As I explained
here ,
if we had stuck with 5 people on the committee then different system would
have had different results, but after extending to 6 based on the
approval-voting tie there was broad agreement: Approval Voting,
Proportional Approval Voting, Phragmén's sequential rule, Maximin Support
and Equal Shares all selected the current committee; only Minimax approval
voting had a different result.

The anonymized votes are here
,
in case anyone wants to do further analysis.
David

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_km71CEnaVUQX4T5mkGz6zMEZKLjfuXW3fsd1w50wNFSw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] "Disputed" PRs: Please vote, it matters

[David Roe]

I will echo Matthias here.  We just spent multiple months working out this
new process.  In order to make it work, people need to help make judgements
about which of these PRs should proceed and be included in Sage.

I understand that participating in these particular PRs can be daunting:
the people involved have strongly held opinions, many of the issues
involved are technical, and the comment history on some of these PRs is
very long.  I especially encourage those of you with substantial packaging
background to help resolve these PRs, but other developers are welcome to
participate in voting as well.
David

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:42 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> Dear all:
> Please take the time to participate in the voting process for the
> "disputed" PRs.
>
>
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+label%3Adisputed+is%3Apr+label%3A%22s%3A+needs+review%22%2C%22s%3A+positive+review%22+sort%3Aupdated-desc
>
> Participation matters!
>
> Matthias
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/8934391b-e5a6-45cb-ab4f-713e8dfdd3f1n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_kw2m0nOnnkuX8A2YxeG9yy%2B9FbQTK75ASUxkYofTbxqw%40mail.gmail.com.

[sage-devel] Re: Vote: Sage Code of Conduct

[David Roe]

Hi all,
With 18 people voting there was a relevant tie.  The new committee is

Nils Bruin (nbr...@sfu.ca, nbruin on github) - sorry again for the earlier
misspelling!
J-P Labbé (jeanphilippela...@gmail.com, jplab on github)
John Palmieri (jhpalmier...@gmail.com, jhpalmieri on github)
Viviane Pons (vivianep...@gmail.com, VivianePons on github)
David Roe (roed.m...@gmail.com, roed314 on github)
Julian Rüth (julian.ru...@fsfe.org, saraedum on github)

Thank you to everyone for voting!

I also want to thank Vincent Delecroix, David Joyner, Harald Schilly, and
William Stein for their service on the committee up until this year.
David

On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 1:13 PM David Roe  wrote:

> Dear Sage developers,
> Thank you for those you nominated people for the committee following my
> request
> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/u-jUo098jQg/m/Hdiqzn0GAwAJ>,
> and thank you for those of you willing to serve.  The nominees are
>
> Nils Braun (nbr...@sfu.ca)
> J-P Labbé (jeanphilippela...@gmail.com, jplab on github)
> John Palmieri (jhpalmier...@gmail.com, jhpalmieri on github)
> Viviane Pons (vivianep...@gmail.com, VivianePons on github)
> David Roe (roed.m...@gmail.com, roed314 on github)
> Julian Rüth (julian.ru...@fsfe.org, saraedum on github)
> William Stein (wst...@gmail.com, williamstein on github)
> Yuan Zhou (xiaoyuan...@gmail.com, yuan-zhou on github)
>
> Please send votes to sage-cond...@googlegroups.com* by Thursday, March
> 14.  We are using approval voting
> <https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting/>, so you can vote
> for as many candidates as you like.  The committee will include at least
> the top 5 candidates, and will be enlarged to include all tied candidates
> if there is a tie for 5th place.  Note that you can choose to vote for more
> or less than 5 candidates if you like.
>
> Discussion of candidates is allowed (feel free to continue this thread),
> but please be respectful.  If you want to see the participation of these
> candidates in the Sage community, you can search by name on sage-devel
> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel> and on github
> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage>.
>
> Thanks for voting,
> David
> for the Sage Code of Conduct Committee
>
> * We are replacing sage-ab...@googlegroups.com with
> sage-cond...@googlegroups.com; they currently have the same membership.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_n7XCSxeFu2GAkhc%3DDWwTm4hT8u0k-cOuTBF84tEN8GMw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

[David Roe]

Sorry for the delay in responding; I have had much time today.

The code of conduct committee's intention in changing the status on some of
the disputed tickets was to note ways in which participants had not
followed our previous standards for setting review status.  At this point,
given the policy that just passed, I personally don't see any practical
difference between the tickets currently being set to positive review and
set to needs review, since either status can be updated to the other based
on the current voting tally.

Voting ends on the new membership for the committee shortly (please send in
your votes now if you've been waiting).  I'd like to ask the new committee
if they have an opinion on how to handle the situation; personally I'm fine
with Kwankyu's suggestion of changing all positive review tickets to needs
review as a way to have changes made by others be in a positive direction.
David

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 7:29 PM Kwankyu Lee  wrote:

> ... if there is any difference in process between the PRs currently set to
> "positive review" and those currently set to "needs review"?
>
>
> In my opinion, all disputed PRs waiting for voting should be reset to
> "needs review" status.
>
> Kwankyu
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/c3532c5d-acdf-4dda-a0ac-385719c0f1c4n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_n7pW%3DMhZpbOOcamjWBNDB-OJYtnuyWPmQmcrFvWW5MCA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

[David Roe]

The vote has passed.  There are currently 36 open disputed PRs
.

Given the extensive comments on some of these PRs, I would agree that we
should follow some version of Karl-Dieter's suggestion.  In particular,
while the author of the PR remains automatically in favor, I'll ask that
people who gave positive reviews affirm their continued support for the PR
by commenting (or forwarding their vote to someone who can comment).  With
such a large set of disputed tickets, while we give people a chance to make
their opinions known please wait until the end of the day Friday (say,
US/Pacific time) before changing status to positive review or needs review
as described in the policy.  Volker will hopefully not merge any of these
disputed tickets for a little while while we work through the new policy.

If there are snags in the process, we can work through them here on
sage-devel.

Also note that I do not anticipate this new process to be a magic bullet
that resolves all of our disagreements that underlie these disputes.  We
will be announcing the results of the vote for new members of the Sage Code
of Conduct committee soon, and I hope that the new committee can discuss
ways to continue to resolve the disagreements.  In the meantime, please be
respectful of each other, both here and on github.

I am not going to have time to encode this policy into our Developer's
Guide for a couple weeks; anyone else is welcome to do so and I'd be happy
to offer a review.
David

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 1:44 PM kcrisman  wrote:

>
> It would be helpful for anyone explicitly voting +/-1 to either link to a
> previous comment or make a new actual comment (beyond the vote) to
> clarify.  This is particularly if there have been new commits since the
> initial dispute, because for an outside reviewer it can be hard to untangle
> all the various comments before the disputed tag is placed on the PR.
>
> (Which would apply to any emailed requests as well.)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/bb229d60-d204-4d04-bc3d-2c88515a389dn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nc9MCDvU5zEKJcbTuLqPYF8v5CDmWN89j_z2RHfHrsMw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Help and Advice | Arithmetic of Jacobians in the Split/Real Model is Broken

[David Roe]

There is also this old trac ticket
 about implementing fast
arithmetic in genus 2 Jacobians, which never made it into Sage.  I've CCed
Mike Jabobson, who worked on it.
David


On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 12:10 PM Giacomo Pope  wrote:

> Thank you for linking this and I agree this is a great way to
> cross-compare the work we have been doing. I am not an expert in this area
> so I am not sure I should do a full review but I'm happy to look over it if
> this helps.
>
> As a small update on this work, I now have
>
> class HyperellipticCurveSmoothModel(AlgebraicScheme_subscheme_toric)
>
> So this new class builds on top of AlgebraicScheme_subscheme_toric and the
> smooth projective model is built using a toric variety. The points on the
> curve are currently SchemeMorphism_point_toric_field, potentially I will
> need to make a child class of these if methods on the points themselves are
> required.
>
> With the working arithmetic and this new inheritance my work is now going
> to be the rather slow and painful rewrite of all hyperelliptic methods from
> the current implementation to ensure everything works on the smooth degree
> model.
>
> On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 6:23:38 AM UTC Kwankyu Lee wrote:
>
>> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 7:37:04 PM UTC+9 Giacomo Pope wrote:
>>
>> As a small update, the repository now contains code to
>>
>> - perform arithmetic for
>>   - the imaginary model (ramified, one point at infinity) for all cases
>>   - the real model (split, two points at infinity) for all cases
>>   - the real model (inert, zero points at infinity) for even genus
>>   Which allows us to do "as much" as Magma does for Jacobians of
>> hyperellipticc curves from the perspective of arithmetic.
>>
>> My current "test" for the arithmetic is that D - D = 0 for all cases,
>> that jacobian_order * D = zero and that order_from_multiple(D) works. If
>> people have other ideas for tests, please let me know. Of course at the
>> moment these tests are over finite fields but you can reasonable use other
>> fields (as Sabrina's message shows) but I am less sure about how to do
>> randomised testing here.
>>
>>
>> I just set https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/35467 to "needs review"
>> status. The PR implements Jacobian arithmetic for general projective curves.
>>
>> It is slow compared with Jacobian arithmetic using Mumford
>> representation, but could be used to crosscheck the computations.
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/7f646c6d-bd0b-452d-a730-30144415f590n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_njyXKS4797cJxVpFsBdVdGt%2B7XFPNXyDEEfK%3DAPks%2BFA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Google Season of Docs – org application deadline April 2

[David Roe]

I think the main question is who is willing to take the lead on writing and
submitting applications (before April 2).  I don't have enough time in the
next three weeks to do any writing, but I am willing to help brainstorm
what form the proposal(s) should take and help edit proposals if someone
else volunteers to write them.
David

On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 6:18 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> Yes, we could prepare several proposals for separate projects.
> One can see in the lists of past funded projects that some organizations
> have received funding for two simultaneous projects.
>
> On Sunday, March 10, 2024 at 8:38:13 AM UTC-7 John Cremona wrote:
>
>> Should there not be separate projects for documenting (1) building and
>> installing Sage; (2) using Sage (perhaps with some subject-specific
>> tutorials, some of which exist but might be worth updating) and (3)
>> documenting individual Sage functions and methods.
>>
>> These require different expertise, for example I recently found a badly
>> misleading docstring in the elliptic curves section, but only someone with
>> the right expertise would be able to rewrite it properly (yes, I will
>> create an issue for this soon!)
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 at 15:03, David Roe  wrote:
>>
>>> I think this would be good for Sage.  I think there are several
>>> decisions to be made:
>>> * What are our most pressing documentation needs?  Personally, I think
>>> we have a gap between the reference manual (which is extensive but has no
>>> flow) and the thematic tutorials (which are written to tell a story but are
>>> just introductions).  I also poked around online for criticisms of Sage's
>>> documentation and found complaints about not having separate pages for
>>> each function <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23513654> (compared
>>> to Mathematica's), some suggestions here
>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/45q7j1/sagemath_open_source_is_now_ready_to_compete_with/>
>>> about focusing on aspects of Sage commonly used by beginners (like
>>> plotting).
>>> * Who will be involved in applying and supervising the project?  This
>>> could be a group or a single person.  I can help a bit, but I can't take
>>> the lead.
>>> David
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 5:13 PM Matthias Koeppe 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> SageMath could benefit from hiring a technical writer for a project to
>>>> improve the Sage documentation. Google Season of Docs is a program
>>>> that supports such projects. Some key facts:
>>>> - total project budget $5,000 - $15,000 USD (via OpenCollective) -
>>>> https://developers.google.com/season-of-docs/docs/org-payments
>>>> - starts April 10 (or May 22 the latest), ends November 22, 2024 -
>>>> https://developers.google.com/season-of-docs/docs/timeline
>>>>
>>>> Several of our peer projects (NumPy, Matplotlib, SymPy, R, Geomstats)
>>>> are among the orgs that appear to have made successful use of this program
>>>> in the past few years, see
>>>> https://developers.google.com/season-of-docs/docs/2023/participants
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "sage-devel" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/32bf06f2-6c35-40a9-855c-857c7af23799n%40googlegroups.com
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/32bf06f2-6c35-40a9-855c-857c7af23799n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "sage-devel" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mEgnbGQgJQHuT9rXLJZMtitYe1CxkUG9Fy0iFGqONRHg%40mail.gmail.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mEgnbGQgJQHuT9rXLJZMtitYe1CxkUG9Fy0iFGqONRHg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

[David Roe]

On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 1:44 PM seb@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Personally I don't mind if a maintainer would correct my typos in the PR
> description (or something else according to Volker's white list). However,
> since this is a privileged action and we cannot be sure that everyone feels
> this way, I think this point should be addressed generally. Perhaps the
> Code of Conduct could specify that permissions for cloud services that are
> technically necessary to maintain the project should generally not be used
> for other purposes unless there is agreement from all affected persons.
>

One thing to note is that when you make a pull request on github you have
the option to opt out
<https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/working-with-forks/allowing-changes-to-a-pull-request-branch-created-from-a-fork>
of these kinds of changes by maintainers.  I think it's good to add
pointers to this in our documentation about making and reviewing PRs, as
well as clarify what kind of changes are acceptable.  I think I agree
with Matthias'
suggestion
<https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37501#issuecomment-1987309496> that
these kinds of guidelines are better put in our reviewing code rather than
the Code of Conduct, since they feel more like details than guiding
principles.
David


> David Roe schrieb am Sonntag, 10. März 2024 um 16:44:06 UTC+1:
>
>> I agree with both Tobias and Matthias that we should have a discussion
>> about the roles of maintainers (since they have defined privileges on
>> github) and changes to Sage's governance model more generally.  Martin and
>> Tobias have commented on trying to include some additional principles into
>> the code of conduct, and I've asked John to include my revised suggestion
>> into the PR <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37501>.  This doesn't
>> currently address all of Martin's points, so if anyone has other concrete
>> changes to suggest feel free to do it here or on the PR.
>>
>> In the interest of moving forward, I'm planning on giving the PR positive
>> review on Thursday.  Of course, additional changes are always possible
>> through a discussion here if we find that there are more that we want to
>> add.
>> David
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 2:45 PM Matthias Koeppe 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it's important to point out that a "Code of Conduct" is merely
>>> one document, of limited scope and purpose.
>>>
>>> In particular it does not touch matters of *governance* of a project.
>>> Open source projects with very different governance structures can share
>>> the same Code of Conduct.
>>>
>>> Questions such as "who can / should set status labels", "who can /
>>> should edit others' Issue/PR descriptions", etc. are primarily questions of
>>> governance, namely of *roles* in a project (and the associated duties
>>> and privileges of people in the role).
>>>
>>> This is a discussion that the project also needs to have quite urgently,
>>> but I suggest to get to this after the vote on the Code of Conduct and the
>>> appointment of the new CoC committee.
>>>
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>> On Friday, March 1, 2024 at 2:49:37 AM UTC-8 Martin R wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would like to ask whether we might want to add some of the following
>>>> to the code of conduct, I could not find it covered there.
>>>>
>>>> I admit that it is unclear to me whether the discussion should be on
>>>> pull requests only.  I don't want to add the following to John's pull
>>>> request, because it definitely doesn't belong there.  Opening another one
>>>> makes things even harder to follow, so I'm trying to be brave.
>>>>
>>>> I imagine that the issues below may be cultural things, so I would
>>>> perfectly understand that all or some of it is perfectly OK in some
>>>> communities, and therefore should not be part of the sage code of conduct.
>>>>
>>>> I also admit that some of the issues below are attitudes that make it
>>>> hard for me to work on sage.  There were some situations in which I would
>>>> possibly have stopped contributing to sage, if sage wasn't a professional
>>>> necessity for me.
>>>>
>>>> 0. sage is a community effort, and not the project of a single or even
>>>> a few persons.  Try to not identify yourself with the code in sage.
>>>> 1. It is not OK to judge somebody else's attempts to improve sage
>>>> other than critisising it technically or 

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Application for NumFOCUS affiliation of SageMath

[David Roe]

I support Matthias' initiative to join NumFocus.  Looking at the application
, there are only a few todo
items:
* Describe the shared history with Cython and IPython.  This doesn't need
to be extensive, but would be useful.
* If we update the code of conduct in #37501
, we should update the dates
when the code of conduct was last modified.

There is also discussion at the bottom about Sage's governance structure,
but I don't think that's required for an affiliated project.
David

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 3:37 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> I don't think one needs to read between the lines. Per
> https://jupyter.org/governance/linux-proposal.html#project-jupyter-s-needs
> it's about funding goals in the $1-$2 million range + permanent staffing +
> support for "operating" (which is described there as "legal/trademark,
> marketing, fundraising, accounting, contracts, internships, events, dev
> ops, etc.")
> None of these seem relevant for our current effort to become a NumFOCUS
> affiliated project.
>
> But as there is a sudden sign of life in this thread, let me point out
> that I have an expanded version of the initial proposal draft:
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/NumFOCUS and I welcome discussion
> here and collaborative editing in the wiki page.
> I'll submit by the next target date (Apr 15).
>
> Matthias
>
>
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 11:28:38 AM UTC-8 kcrisman wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 2:08:07 PM UTC-5 William Stein wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Related to NumFOCUS, this new proposal for Jupyter to restructure their
>> relationship with NumFocus is possibly relevant:
>>
>> https://jupyter.org/governance/linux-proposal.html
>>
>>
>> Interesting, and certainly relevant.  It's a little unclear to me why
>> NumFOCUS is not appropriate for them, other than a vague reference to
>> operations - can anyone read between the lines for those of us not as
>> plugged into that world?
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/d5bf8367-6adf-463a-8d0c-d084e2d8756cn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3DYOH03G9riLrthc1b4h0ZniYbBKf%2BgWFHxy1M%3D6SP4Ow%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

[David Roe]

I agree with both Tobias and Matthias that we should have a discussion
about the roles of maintainers (since they have defined privileges on
github) and changes to Sage's governance model more generally.  Martin and
Tobias have commented on trying to include some additional principles into
the code of conduct, and I've asked John to include my revised suggestion
into the PR .  This doesn't
currently address all of Martin's points, so if anyone has other concrete
changes to suggest feel free to do it here or on the PR.

In the interest of moving forward, I'm planning on giving the PR positive
review on Thursday.  Of course, additional changes are always possible
through a discussion here if we find that there are more that we want to
add.
David

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 2:45 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> I think it's important to point out that a "Code of Conduct" is merely one
> document, of limited scope and purpose.
>
> In particular it does not touch matters of *governance* of a project.
> Open source projects with very different governance structures can share
> the same Code of Conduct.
>
> Questions such as "who can / should set status labels", "who can / should
> edit others' Issue/PR descriptions", etc. are primarily questions of
> governance, namely of *roles* in a project (and the associated duties and
> privileges of people in the role).
>
> This is a discussion that the project also needs to have quite urgently,
> but I suggest to get to this after the vote on the Code of Conduct and the
> appointment of the new CoC committee.
>
> Matthias
>
> On Friday, March 1, 2024 at 2:49:37 AM UTC-8 Martin R wrote:
>
>> I would like to ask whether we might want to add some of the following to
>> the code of conduct, I could not find it covered there.
>>
>> I admit that it is unclear to me whether the discussion should be on pull
>> requests only.  I don't want to add the following to John's pull request,
>> because it definitely doesn't belong there.  Opening another one makes
>> things even harder to follow, so I'm trying to be brave.
>>
>> I imagine that the issues below may be cultural things, so I would
>> perfectly understand that all or some of it is perfectly OK in some
>> communities, and therefore should not be part of the sage code of conduct.
>>
>> I also admit that some of the issues below are attitudes that make it
>> hard for me to work on sage.  There were some situations in which I would
>> possibly have stopped contributing to sage, if sage wasn't a professional
>> necessity for me.
>>
>> 0. sage is a community effort, and not the project of a single or even a
>> few persons.  Try to not identify yourself with the code in sage.
>> 1. It is not OK to judge somebody else's attempts to improve sage other
>> than critisising it technically or casting a negative vote.  By contrast,
>> emphasising the positive aspects and appreciating the effort is welcome.
>> 2. It is not OK to emphasise oneselves contributions or stressing that
>> one has been right.  By contrast, it is fine to express that one is happy
>> or perhaps even proud to have solved a particular technical problem.
>> 3. It is not OK to modify the description of a pull request or issue of
>> somebody else without explicit permission, ideally on the ticket so that
>> the permission is visible to all readers.
>> 4. It is not OK to change a pull request to "positive review" if someone
>> has already expressed explicitly that it shouldn't be merged, and there
>> hasn't been a vote.
>>
>> Comments and variations, but also saying that this should not be
>> discussed for a particular reason: welcome!
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Martin
>> On Wednesday 28 February 2024 at 22:24:29 UTC+1 John H Palmieri wrote:
>>
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>
>>> I am working on some changes to Sage's Code of Conduct, and I am asking
>>> for comments. Once the draft has stabilized, then we will hold a vote on
>>> sage-devel to approve (or not) the changes. Please visit
>>> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37501 to see the proposal.
>>>
>>> The current Code of Conduct was approved by a vote in sage-devel almost
>>> 10 years ago. My intention is not to alter the core principles in the Code
>>> of Conduct, but instead to add more details: for example, how should you
>>> report a possible violation, what are possible consequences if the Sage
>>> Code of Conduct Committee (what has until now been called the Sage Abuse
>>> Committee) finds that a violation occurred, how to amend the document, etc.
>>> The changes are based in large part on similar documents from SciPy and
>>> NumFOCUS: we are not reinventing the wheel.
>>>
>>> As such, I hope that the proposed changes are (a) not controversial, and
>>> (b) a clear improvement. I could certainly be wrong about either of these,
>>> but I will make this suggestion: if you agree with me about (a) and (b) and
>>> you also want to propose changes that are potentially more 

Re: [sage-devel] Google Season of Docs – org application deadline April 2

[David Roe]

I think this would be good for Sage.  I think there are several decisions
to be made:
* What are our most pressing documentation needs?  Personally, I think we
have a gap between the reference manual (which is extensive but has no
flow) and the thematic tutorials (which are written to tell a story but are
just introductions).  I also poked around online for criticisms of Sage's
documentation and found complaints about not having separate pages for each
function  (compared to
Mathematica's), some suggestions here

about focusing on aspects of Sage commonly used by beginners (like
plotting).
* Who will be involved in applying and supervising the project?  This could
be a group or a single person.  I can help a bit, but I can't take the lead.
David

On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 5:13 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> SageMath could benefit from hiring a technical writer for a project to
> improve the Sage documentation. Google Season of Docs is a program that
> supports such projects. Some key facts:
> - total project budget $5,000 - $15,000 USD (via OpenCollective) -
> https://developers.google.com/season-of-docs/docs/org-payments
> - starts April 10 (or May 22 the latest), ends November 22, 2024 -
> https://developers.google.com/season-of-docs/docs/timeline
>
> Several of our peer projects (NumPy, Matplotlib, SymPy, R, Geomstats) are
> among the orgs that appear to have made successful use of this program in
> the past few years, see
> https://developers.google.com/season-of-docs/docs/2023/participants etc.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/32bf06f2-6c35-40a9-855c-857c7af23799n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mEgnbGQgJQHuT9rXLJZMtitYe1CxkUG9Fy0iFGqONRHg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Labels and Reviewing

[David Roe]

Dear Sage developers,
Dima is correct that there are several developers who have blocked each
other.  The Sage Code of Conduct Committee is aware of several cases and is
working on resolving them.  We believe both that the presence of these
blocks is harming the Sage project, and that it can be appropriate to block
another user.  In an extreme example, if one user "A" was stalking or
harassing another "B", it would absolutely be appropriate for B to block A.
Any resulting harm to the project is completely the responsibility of A in
such a situation. We are not saying that this situation applies for any of
the existing blocks, but there will certainly be less extreme cases in
which blocking remains appropriate.

In any case, the committee asks that anyone affected by blocking to please
channel their understandable frustration towards patiently working with us
to constructively resolve the current blocks individually and voluntarily.
We will continue to work toward addressing the underlying reasons
(revisions to the code of conduct, recruiting new members, new policies on
labels and reviewing, additional actions on github and in private).

Thanks,
David
for the Sage Code of Conduct Committee

On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 9:30 AM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:

>
>
> On 8 March 2024 14:11:41 GMT, 'Martin R' via sage-devel <
> sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >I don't know exactly what case of blocking you have in mind,
>
> on GitHub you can block a user - such a block prevents the blocked user
> from commenting and changing the status of your PRs and issues.
>
> Currently there are a few Sage team members blocking each other.
> I have made our CoC committee aware of this fact, but they are in no rush
> to rule on it, it seems.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3DOQMThbcJz5o%3D-X%3D-kmOrm%3DJJraC%3Dm%2BsJw7_CrAY4Nqw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Labels and Reviewing

[David Roe]

Addressing a comment from Travis
<https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/IgBYUJl33SQ/m/CCKJ0dVCAAAJ> on
the voting thread:

"but might want to consider cases when its 2 vs 1 as requiring at least one
other person involved. (Sorry for being late to realize this.)"

This border case was actually one of the reasons that I suggested a 2 to 1
threshold.  I think that if a single objector thinks that a PR should not
proceed and the author and reviewer both think it should, the onus should
be on the objector to find other developers who share their objections.
David

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:53 AM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 11:29 AM Giacomo Pope 
> wrote:
>
>> Apologies for the basic question in this thread, but recently I have seen
>> lots of conversation about the different labels and I want to clarify
>> something for myself.
>>
>> In the past few PR I have made for Sage, randomised testing has uncovered
>> (usually) trivial bugs. I then write new PRs to fix these bugs.
>>
>> If there is code causing CI failure in random testing, should I mark the
>> fix for this as a "blocker", even if the chance of this failure is small? I
>> don't want to be melodramatic in my PR for fixes but I also want to make
>> sure I'm labelling things as expected,
>>
>
> I don't think we ever tag anything but most onerous maths bugs as blockers
> (e.g. we have a plenty of outstanding symbolic integration bugs).
> That is, unless it's absolutely Earth-shuttering, don't use "blocker".
>
> Dima
>
>
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 6:08:20 AM UTC David Roe wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 1:01 AM Kwankyu Lee  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you for making progress on these urgent issues. I suggest the
>>>> following:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Open two other new threads, each of which is for voting on each
>>>> proposal.
>>>> 2. On a proposal, it should be clear that *a positive vote (+1) is for
>>>> the whole proposal,* and if one is negative to any part of the
>>>> proposal, (s)he should give a negative vote (-1).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Voting threads seem reasonable.  I'll wait a day or two to see if people
>>> have any final comments before voting.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3. A proposal is accepted if the number of positive votes is at least
>>>> twice of the number of the negative votes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Despite the fact that we're asking for this threshold in voting on a PR,
>>> the standard for votes on proposals on sage-devel is just a plain majority
>>> (though of course I hope that we can come to a 2-1 consensus!).
>>>
>>> A minor suggestion for Proposal 2: for the label to be readable, I
>>>> suggest "CI fix" for the name of the label (a blank between words).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm happy to adjust the label to be "CI fix."
>>>
>>>
>>>> We may use this thread to get more comments on the Proposals before
>>>> opening voting threads.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "sage-devel" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/554961a0-4ace-4317-bfcf-55b6a128bcden%40googlegroups.com
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/554961a0-4ace-4317-bfcf-55b6a128bcden%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "sage-devel" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/b84b22d2-9b57-460c-9f8d-5f8ebe2f982en%40googlegroups.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/b84b22d2-9b57-460c-9f8d-5f8ebe2f982en%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq2eMM%3DzUHCZ_dpfDvxattotQmaD-0kht6J8ZxCL9K005w%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq2eMM%3DzUHCZ_dpfDvxattotQmaD-0kht6J8ZxCL9K005w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nR1T2CtkD%2BEY7AHFDU5Y4TE0u1WUeWZ9crVkbhLt4%2Byg%40mail.gmail.com.

[sage-devel] Vote: Sage Code of Conduct

[David Roe]

Dear Sage developers,
Thank you for those you nominated people for the committee following my
request
<https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/u-jUo098jQg/m/Hdiqzn0GAwAJ>, and
thank you for those of you willing to serve.  The nominees are

Nils Braun (nbr...@sfu.ca)
J-P Labbé (jeanphilippela...@gmail.com, jplab on github)
John Palmieri (jhpalmier...@gmail.com, jhpalmieri on github)
Viviane Pons (vivianep...@gmail.com, VivianePons on github)
David Roe (roed.m...@gmail.com, roed314 on github)
Julian Rüth (julian.ru...@fsfe.org, saraedum on github)
William Stein (wst...@gmail.com, williamstein on github)
Yuan Zhou (xiaoyuan...@gmail.com, yuan-zhou on github)

Please send votes to sage-cond...@googlegroups.com* by Thursday, March 14.
We are using approval voting
<https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting/>, so you can vote for
as many candidates as you like.  The committee will include at least the
top 5 candidates, and will be enlarged to include all tied candidates if
there is a tie for 5th place.  Note that you can choose to vote for more or
less than 5 candidates if you like.

Discussion of candidates is allowed (feel free to continue this thread),
but please be respectful.  If you want to see the participation of these
candidates in the Sage community, you can search by name on sage-devel
<https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel> and on github
<https://github.com/sagemath/sage>.

Thanks for voting,
David
for the Sage Code of Conduct Committee

* We are replacing sage-ab...@googlegroups.com with
sage-cond...@googlegroups.com; they currently have the same membership.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nvq1OpoEZQaVqL6ntkHoU6_rmYY2KvGiVBJ-ZtpVjspA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Looking for volunteers

[David Roe]

We've received several nominations, but if you have been on the fence about
suggesting someone I encourage you to write to us.  The nomination period
will close tomorrow night.
David

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:52 AM David Roe  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:51 AM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:
>
>>
>>> We propose the following voting system.
>>> 1. A nomination period of 1 week, where any Sage developer can nominate
>>> someone to serve on the committee by emailing
>>> sage-ab...@googlegroups.com.  You are allowed to nominate yourself (and
>>> we encourage it); if you nominate someone else we will email them and ask
>>> if they are willing to serve.  To be eligible you should have
>>> a. Contributed code to Sage at some point in the past
>>> b. Not been subject to a complaint to the committee at any point.
>>>
>>
>> b. sounds way too broad to me. Should it say in addition something like
>> "The complaint in question only qualifies if it was ruled valid by the
>> committee." Note that these complaints were misused in the past.
>>
>
> Sure, that seems reasonable.
> David
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3D-T3iKgi5f55JDpJh43ZFA2fMeJs_F%3DTC8KYpO4Rz-VA%40mail.gmail.com.

[sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

[David Roe]

The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks: in
PR #37428 , in this thread
 and then in this
thread .  It is
orthogonal to the ongoing vote in this thread
.  With no further
discussion, I'm calling a vote.

*Background*

Starting in Sage 10.2, PRs with the Blocker label have been merged into all
other PRs before running CI; see the changelog

and this post
 for
more details.  This has led to disagreements about whether this label
should be applied.

*Proposal*
We use "CI Fix" rather than Blocker to determine whether an open PR should
be merged before running CI.  Blocker will retain its previous meaning of a
PR that should be merged before the next release is finished.  The process
below describes how to resolve disagreements about whether the "CI Fix"
label should be applied.
a. Only PRs with positive review should be marked with the "CI Fix" label.
This should be done if both author and reviewer agree that it is
appropriate, and a rationale should be given in a comment on the ticket.
b. If a PR becomes disputed (as described in this proposal
), the "CI Fix"
status can be voted on separately upon request; otherwise it should be
applied if and only if positive review is applied.

Voting will be open until Wednesday, March 13.
David

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mYLUWXMU6AZKJGPKd2oz0AC_qAUjnGoD9Q9yixzNBC2w%40mail.gmail.com.

[sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

[David Roe]

With no further discussion on this thread
, I'm calling a vote
on a new process for resolving disagreements on a PR.

*Proposal*
It is now allowed to vote on disputed PRs directly on Github rather than
bringing them to sage-devel.  Working things out amicably is preferable,
and anyone is welcome to ask on sage-devel for more eyes on a PR.  If you
notice a serious issue with a PR, it is acceptable to change it to Needs
Work (and make a comment!) as an initial step, but if the author or
reviewer do not agree then process below should be followed instead. This
process is intended as a lower-intensity method for resolving
disagreements, and full votes on sage-devel override the process described
below.
a. When there is disagreement about whether a PR should be merged, anyone
may mark a PR as disputed.
b. There is no scheduled vote, but rather an ongoing poll based on opinions
expressed by developers on the PR (these opinions can be expressed via
previous positive reviews or explicit comments giving approval).  The PR
author is presumed to vote in favor; if they give up or no longer favor the
PR they have the right to close the PR overall without any further voting.
c. If the total number of positive votes is at least twice the number of
negative votes, anyone involved may set the status to *positive review*; if
the total number of positive votes is less than twice the number of
negative votes, anyone involved may set the status to *needs review*.  When
either of these actions is taken, the person changing the status must list
the people they are counting as positive and negative votes in a comment
using @ mentions.
d. The final decision on merging a disputed PR remains with the release
manager, and we encourage the release manager to give enough time for
everyone to express an opinion.

Voting will be open until Wednesday, March 13.
David

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_n4az3_s16E%3DANOv_o%2B0SvavHwnpqKWYuOznGWTJoXqEg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Permissions on github

[David Roe]

As far as I can tell, you need some kind of admin privileges in order to
add people to Triage (which is unfortunate, since membership in this team
is critical for our reviewing process).  The method that I use is to go here
 and click on the big green
"Add member" button at the top right.  If you don't see this button, then
I'm correct about the required permissions

In the short term, I've added nadialafreniere to triage, and I'm happy to
add others by request from Sage developers that I recognize (feel free to
either email me at roed.m...@gmail.com or contact me on Zulip
).  In the long term, we should figure out a
better process and document it.
David

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 11:53 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel <
sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I couldn't find the appropriate place to ask (and I think that this should
> be fixed): how can I give someone the permission to modify labels, I think
> that's called triage team now? User name would be nadialafreniere.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Martin
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/635a7d01-c8fe-4619-8684-2ce6de55355cn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3DAZBzhqqT_KfzgBo0PMzktgF30MDWn0bwcHEoqpBHneg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

[David Roe]

Thank you for starting the conversation Martin.  I certainly think that all
of these suggestions are appropriate to discuss, and that sage-devel is
probably a better venue for discussion like this than the PR.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 5:49 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel <
sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I would like to ask whether we might want to add some of the following to
> the code of conduct, I could not find it covered there.
>
> I admit that it is unclear to me whether the discussion should be on pull
> requests only.  I don't want to add the following to John's pull request,
> because it definitely doesn't belong there.  Opening another one makes
> things even harder to follow, so I'm trying to be brave.
>
> I imagine that the issues below may be cultural things, so I would
> perfectly understand that all or some of it is perfectly OK in some
> communities, and therefore should not be part of the sage code of conduct.
>
> I also admit that some of the issues below are attitudes that make it hard
> for me to work on sage.  There were some situations in which I would
> possibly have stopped contributing to sage, if sage wasn't a professional
> necessity for me.
>

I'm sorry to hear that there were situations like this.  If you think it
would be helpful to describe them in more detail privately (even if you're
not seeking any kind of action), feel free to write to the Code of Conduct
committee.

Here are my thoughts on your suggestions.  I think that some of them should
definitely be included, though it's not completely clear to me where (it
feels awkward to add yet another enumerated list).


> 0. sage is a community effort, and not the project of a single or even a
> few persons.  Try to not identify yourself with the code in sage.
>

The community aspect of Sage is currently discussed in the introduction,
and perhaps we can tweak that to incorporate this suggestion.  As for the
second half, I don't understand how it fits into a code of conduct, since
it seems aimed at internal processes (like how to cope if your code is
removed from Sage), rather than behavior.

Currently our introduction is "The Sage community is comprised of an
international mixture of mathematicians, computer scientists, engineers,
researchers, teachers, amateurs, and others with varied backgrounds. This
diversity is one of our strengths, but it can also lead to communication
problems and unhappiness. People who love working on Sage can more
effectively collaborate with others if they follow this code."  What do you
feel is missing from this that you're trying to include?


> 1. It is not OK to judge somebody else's attempts to improve sage other
> than critisising it technically or casting a negative vote.  By contrast,
> emphasising the positive aspects and appreciating the effort is welcome.
>

I like the idea of including more about positivity, and this fits in with
Guideline 2: "Be welcoming. We strive to be a community that welcomes and
supports people of all backgrounds and identities."  Maybe we can append a
sentence here like "When discussing contributions, endeavor to encourage
positive aspects and avoid overly harsh criticism."

I do think there are cultural differences here, and personally I think
restricting negative feedback to just voting and "technical" criticism goes
too far, partly because I don't think technical is very clearly defined.
There are judgement calls to be made about what should be included into
Sage, which are not always a matter of what method is technically
superior.  I don't think we want to restrict developer's ability to offer
negative feedback, but instead to encourage people to be positive and
welcoming.  I'd like to hear other perspectives on this.


> 2. It is not OK to emphasise oneselves contributions or stressing that one
> has been right.  By contrast, it is fine to express that one is happy or
> perhaps even proud to have solved a particular technical problem.
>

I'm struggling to translate this idea into something concrete that I feel
comfortable adding to the code of conduct.  I think it's important to allow
people to get credit for the contributions that they've made to Sage, so I
don't know what part of emphasizing your own contributions is problematic.
Similarly, I think it's too much to ask people to not claim that they are
on the correct side of an argument if a discussion gets contentious.  Is
there some other aspect of this kind of behavior that we might focus on?


> 3. It is not OK to modify the description of a pull request or issue of
> somebody else without explicit permission, ideally on the ticket so that
> the permission is visible to all readers.
>

I actually think that modifying someone else's pull request to clarify it,
fix typos, or adjust it once the scope has changed is fine.  I'm curious
what other people think, and what our community standard should be.
Martin, what aspects of this bother you?  Are there any kinds of
modifications that you think are 

Re: [sage-devel] Looking for volunteers

[David Roe]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:51 AM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:

>
>> We propose the following voting system.
>> 1. A nomination period of 1 week, where any Sage developer can nominate
>> someone to serve on the committee by emailing sage-ab...@googlegroups.com.
>> You are allowed to nominate yourself (and we encourage it); if you nominate
>> someone else we will email them and ask if they are willing to serve.  To
>> be eligible you should have
>> a. Contributed code to Sage at some point in the past
>> b. Not been subject to a complaint to the committee at any point.
>>
>
> b. sounds way too broad to me. Should it say in addition something like
> "The complaint in question only qualifies if it was ruled valid by the
> committee." Note that these complaints were misused in the past.
>

Sure, that seems reasonable.
David

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nJ-TfF2E1LOkf5YiJVfTC1F_60H7tbS5i0W5D1sOhSkg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Labels and Reviewing

[David Roe]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 1:01 AM Kwankyu Lee  wrote:

> Thank you for making progress on these urgent issues. I suggest the
> following:
>
> 1. Open two other new threads, each of which is for voting on each
> proposal.
> 2. On a proposal, it should be clear that *a positive vote (+1) is for
> the whole proposal,* and if one is negative to any part of the proposal,
> (s)he should give a negative vote (-1).
>

Voting threads seem reasonable.  I'll wait a day or two to see if people
have any final comments before voting.


> 3. A proposal is accepted if the number of positive votes is at least
> twice of the number of the negative votes.
>

Despite the fact that we're asking for this threshold in voting on a PR,
the standard for votes on proposals on sage-devel is just a plain majority
(though of course I hope that we can come to a 2-1 consensus!).

A minor suggestion for Proposal 2: for the label to be readable, I suggest
> "CI fix" for the name of the label (a blank between words).
>

I'm happy to adjust the label to be "CI fix."


> We may use this thread to get more comments on the Proposals before
> opening voting threads.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/554961a0-4ace-4317-bfcf-55b6a128bcden%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3DWSQ9s_kqtMocoHnwuiGYp-Ad%2B6RmgEvpZOMNjx4sZxA%40mail.gmail.com.

[sage-devel] Labels and Reviewing

[David Roe]

Dear Sage developers,
The conflicts we've seen in the last several months are multifaceted, but
one of the central issues at hand is how we decide what code is
incorporated into Sage through our review process.  I have two goals for
this thread: to describe our current standards (as codified in the Developer
Guide ) and ask for
help in enforcing them, and to call a vote on several changes.

*Our current standards*:
1. A PR must be positively reviewed by another sage developer; there is no
notion of negative review.  If you come across a ticket that has positive
review and you notice a problem that the reviewer missed, you have several
options.  First, you can just make a comment drawing attention to the
matter.  If the problem causes repeatable build/test failures,
mathematically incorrect output or causes Sage's documentation to not
build, you should change the label from Positive Review to Needs Work and
make a comment describing the problem.  If the author and reviewer do not
agree that it is actually a problem, they should set the ticket back to
Positive Review and you *should not engage more on that PR*.  You are free
to create another issue or PR addressing the problem that you have noticed.
2. We have recently started using Disputed as a tag for PRs where there is
disagreement about how to proceed.  This is not mentioned in the Developer
Guide, and there has been no vote on sage-devel about how it should be
used.  But the purpose seems clear to me: it indicates the presence of
disagreement.  As such, once a PR has been marked Disputed, *do not remove
this tag*: you cannot unilaterally decide that there is no controversy.
3. We have no set process for deciding whether a PR should be marked as a
blocker; our guide currently just says "developers should use blocker
priority sparingly and should indicate the rationale on the PR. Though
there is no one fixed rule or authority that determines what is appropriate
for blocker status, PRs introducing new features and PRs that make big
changes are usually not blockers."  I make some proposals below to clarify
the situation, but in the meantime the sage-abuse committee will be
enforcing the following standards to prevent label wars: *if there is
disagreement about whether a PR should be marked as a blocker, mark it as
critical instead*.

All three of these standards have been frequently violated in the last
several months.  The sage-abuse committee intends to enforce them more
vigorously; a consistent pattern of violations will result in the loss of
Triage privileges (resulting in an inability to review PRs and change
labels).  If you notice violations of these standards, please draw them to
the committee's attention by emailing sage-ab...@googlegroups.com.


Proposals
I have two separate proposals related to the above issues; feel free to
vote on them separately.  Voting will be open until Friday, March 8.

1. Using Github to vote on disputed PRs.  Working things out amicably is
preferable, and anyone is welcome to ask on sage-devel for more eyes on a
PR.  If you notice a serious issue with a PR, it is acceptable to change it
to Needs Work (and make a comment!) as an initial step, but if the
author/reviewer don't agree the process below should be followed instead.
This process is intended as a lower-intensity method for resolving
disagreements, and full votes on sage-devel override the process described
below.
a. When there is disagreement about whether a PR should be merged, anyone
may mark a PR as disputed.
b. There is no scheduled vote, but rather an ongoing poll based on opinions
expressed by developers on the PR (these opinions can be expressed via
previous positive reviews or explicit comments giving approval).  The PR
author is presumed to vote in favor; if they give up or no longer favor the
PR they have the right to close the PR overall without any further voting.
c. If the total number of positive votes is at least twice the number of
negative votes, anyone involved may set the status to *positive review*; if
the total number of positive votes is less than twice the number of
negative votes, anyone involved may set the status to *needs review*.  When
either of these actions is taken, the person changing the status must list
the people they are counting as positive and negative votes in a comment
using @ mentions.
d. The final decision on merging a disputed PR remains with the release
manager, and we encourage the release manager to give enough time for
everyone to express an opinion.


2. We use CIfix rather than Blocker to determine whether an open PR should
be merged before running CI.  The process below describes how to resolve
disagreements about whether this label should be applied.
a. Only PRs with positive review should be marked with the CIFix label.
This should be done if both author and reviewer agree that it is
appropriate, and a rationale should be given in a comment on the ticket.

[sage-devel] Looking for volunteers

[David Roe]

Hi Sage developers,
As some of you may be aware, there has been more conflict in the last
several months than normal, including multiple violations of our Code of
Conduct.  Sage's mechanism for moderating conflicts and addressing such
violations is a committee, reachable at sage-ab...@googlegroups.com.  I
announced the membership of this committee a few days ago in another
thread; since then one member has resigned and another has expressed
willingness to be replaced.  The current membership is
William Stein
John Palmieri
David Roe
Vincent Delecroix
David Joyner
As a group, we believe that this committee would benefit from new members,
so we are opening a process to add and/or change the membership (the five
of us will go through the same process described below as anyone else
interested in serving on the committee).

We propose the following voting system.
1. A nomination period of 1 week, where any Sage developer can nominate
someone to serve on the committee by emailing sage-ab...@googlegroups.com.
You are allowed to nominate yourself (and we encourage it); if you nominate
someone else we will email them and ask if they are willing to serve.  To
be eligible you should have
a. Contributed code to Sage at some point in the past
b. Not been subject to a complaint to the committee at any point.
During the nomination period, you may also write to sage-abuse with names
of people who you believe should not serve on the committee; if one of
these people is nominated we will write to you asking for more
justification.  If you have a reservation about someone already on the
committee, you should feel free to write to us individually.
2. After the nomination period, we will announce nominees on sage-devel,
and ask for votes (which will also be sent to sage-ab...@googlegroups.com).
Voting will be by approval voting (you can select an arbitrary number of
people to vote for, unordered).  The committee will include at least the
top 5 candidates, and will be enlarged to include all tied candidates if
there is a tie for 5th place.
3. After a week of voting, we will announce the new composition of the
committee.

We're aware that this process is not optimal (and welcome suggestions for
improvement).  But we'd like more help, soon.  So we will open nominations
in parallel to discussion of the process.  We anticipate running this
process every 3 years to refresh membership.

Qualities that we're looking for are
1. Tactfulness and judgement in moderating conflicts and addressing abuse
2. Willingness to put time and effort into repairing some of the problems
that we've seen in our community.
If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to us individually, or as
a group.  We will be following this with some proposed changes to the Code
of Conduct, as well as a new document describing how we handle reports
(following the example of SciPy and NumFocus).  Thanks,
David
for the sage-abuse committee

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_kDCa8TYWnQ10pLtpOewSKaCQBFkhb6w3hZ%2BLbQEgsN2A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Unload "blocker" label

[David Roe]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 8:06 PM John H Palmieri 
wrote:

> I think that usage (1) is the correct use of "blocker," and usage (3) is
> not. Usage (2) should have a new name, as Vincent proposes. Failing that,
> this new use of "blocker" must be documented in
> https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/review.html.
>

I also agree that usage (2) should get a new name.  How about "CIFix?"
David


> On Monday, February 26, 2024 at 4:21:58 PM UTC-8 Kwankyu Lee wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 2:43:18 AM UTC+9 Vincent Delecroix wrote:
>>
>> In that case, let me do a proposal.
>>
>> Introduce a new label distinct from "blocker" for
>>
>> usage 2: PRs that should be merged temporarily before CI tests run
>>
>>
>> I meant by "merged temporarily" the "CI fixes" in Matthias' explanation:
>>
>>- *Within the release candidate stage,* developers who mark a PR as a
>>"blocker" so that it be merged in the upcoming stable release need to know
>>whether their blocker PR will be conflicting with other blockers (=
>>candidates for merging in the next rc). Having the "blocker" label double
>>as the "CI fixes" trigger takes care of this.
>>
>> So blocker PRs get the chance to be tested together before the release by
>> the "CI fixes" mechanism. Thus "usage 1" and "usage 2" are connected.
>> Having distinct labels for them does not reflect the connection.
>>
>> I propose (as this discussion is a place to give proposals :-) to give
>> "the chance to be tested together" only to blocker PRs with "positive
>> review". This slightly separates "usage 1" and "usage 2". This proposal was
>> suggested when the "CI fixes" mechanism was introduced, and can be
>> activated easily.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/001204a7-53fe-43ec-8be6-d2dbdd15b69dn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3DXsP9WQ8oW-KfPDQt4sDA8uxNL9K0MOO%3DBoncBm6OMVQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Bug in finding generators of elliptic curves over a quadratic domain

[David Roe]

The problem is in the definition of avoid.  There was an assumption made
that the discriminant would be integral, so
any(q.divides(m) for m in avoid)
has avoid = [1048576/5764801, 8, 28, 49, 7]
If you change the definition of avoid from
avoid = [self._N, self._D] + [P[0].denominator_ideal().norm() for P in
Plist]
to
avoid = [self._N.numerator(), self._N.denominator(), self._D.numerator(),
self._D.denominator()] + [P[0].denominator_ideal().norm() for P in Plist]
I'm guessing that it will fix the problem.

If you're looking for a short-term solution, you could find an integral
model of E:
sage: EE = E.integral_model(); EE
Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 = x^3 + (30*a-45)*x^2 + (-672*a+952)*x over
Number Field in a with defining polynomial x^2 - 2 with a =
1.414213562373095?
sage: EE.gens_quadratic()
[(-18*a + 26 : 18*a - 26 : 1)]

You'll need to find the morphism from E to EE though in order to get the
generators in terms of coordinates for your original curve.
David

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 12:41 PM William Paulsen 
wrote:

> I ran the following code in SageMath 10.2:
>
> sage: K. = QuadraticField(2)
> sage: E = EllipticCurve([0, 60/49*a - 135/49, 0, -576/343*a + 904/343,
> 0]); E
> Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 = x^3 + (60/49*a-135/49)*x^2 +
> (-576/343*a+904/343)*x over Number Field in a with defining polynomial x^2
> - 2 with a = 1.414213562373095?
> sage: E.rank()
> 1
>
> So I know that the elliptic curve is properly defined, and there should be
> a generator. But when I try to find the generator:
>
> sage: E.gens_quadratic()
>
> I get the following error:
> ---
> TypeError Traceback (most recent call last) Cell In [5], line 1 > 1 E.
> gens_quadratic() File
> /ext/sage/10.2/src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_number_field.py:4123,
> in EllipticCurve_number_field.gens_quadratic(self, **kwds) 4121 gens1 =
> [iso1(P) for P in EQ1.gens(**kwds)] 4122 gens2 = [iso2(P) for P in EQ2.
> gens(**kwds)] -> 4123 gens = self.saturation(gens1 + gens2, max_prime=2)[0]
> 4124 self.__gens = gens 4125 return gens File
> /ext/sage/10.2/src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_number_field.py:4042,
> in EllipticCurve_number_field.saturation(self, points, verbose,
> max_prime, one_prime, odd_primes_only, lower_ht_bound, reg, debug) 4040 if
> verbose: 4041 print("Saturating at p=%s" % p) -> 4042 newPlist, expo =
> saturator.full_p_saturation(Plist, p) 4043 if expo: 4044 if verbose: File
> /ext/sage/10.2/src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/saturation.py:281, in
> EllipticCurveSaturator.full_p_saturation(self, Plist, p) 278 if verbose:
> 279 print("Adding {} torsion generators before 
> {}-saturation".format(extra_torsion,p))
> --> 281 res = self.p_saturation(Plist, p) 282 while res: # res is either
> False or (i, newP) 283 exponent += 1 File
> /ext/sage/10.2/src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/saturation.py:497, in
> EllipticCurveSaturator.p_saturation(self, Plist, p, sieve) 495 cm_test = E
> .has_rational_cm() and kro(E.cm_discriminant(), p) == -1 496 for q in
> Primes(): --> 497 if any(q.divides(m) for m in avoid): 498 continue 499 if
> cm_test and not p.divides(q-1): File
> /ext/sage/10.2/src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/saturation.py:497, in
> (.0) 495 cm_test = E.has_rational_cm() and kro(E.cm_discriminant(),
> p) == -1 496 for q in Primes(): --> 497 if any(q.divides(m) for m in
> avoid): 498 continue 499 if cm_test and not p.divides(q-1): File
> /ext/sage/10.2/src/sage/rings/integer.pyx:4171, in
> sage.rings.integer.Integer.divides() 4169 cdef bint t 4170 cdef Integer
> _n -> 4171 _n = Integer(n) 4172 if mpz_sgn(self.value) == 0: 4173 return
> mpz_sgn(_n.value) == 0 File /ext/sage/10.2/src/sage/rings/integer.pyx:653,
> in sage.rings.integer.Integer.__init__() 651 otmp = getattr(x,
> "_integer_", None) 652 if otmp is not None: --> 653
> set_from_Integer(self, otmp(the_integer_ring)) 654 return 655 File
> /ext/sage/10.2/src/sage/rings/rational.pyx:2969, in
> sage.rings.rational.Rational._integer_() 2967 """ 2968 if not
> mpz_cmp_si(mpq_denref(self.value), 1) == 0: -> 2969 raise TypeError("no
> conversion of this rational to integer") 2970 cdef Integer n =
> Integer.__new__(Integer) 2971 n.set_from_mpz(mpq_numref(self.value))
> TypeError: no conversion of this rational to integer One thing I noticed
> is that this error is referring to Primes().
> This field happens to have class number 1, but there are many quadratic
> domains that have a larger class number, where Primes would be meaningless.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/e85cf0d6-b27c-44ed-9e1c-3bbcd6735a6an%40googlegroups.com
> 

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Disputed Pull Requests / Role Sage-Abuse and the Code of Conduct

[David Roe]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 9:11 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 6:50:10 AM UTC-8 William Stein wrote:
>
> the main act of censure that the sage-abuse committee will be
> taking going forward will be to delete comments (on github and mailing
> lists) that violate the code of conduct.
>
>
> William, Volker, I've already shared privately in great detail why this is
> insufficient.
>
> But even this decidedly narrow scope -- is anyone taking care of it at all?
> Is https://groups.google.com/g/sage-abuse attended?
>

I can confirm that the google group list does receive messages.


> And if so, may we know who's on the committee?
>
> Asking on behalf of the community.
>

The members of the committee are:

* William Stein
* Vincent Delecroix
* David Joyner
* Harald Schilly
* John Palmieri
* David Roe

The membership of the committee has been unchanged for years, and some of
us are no longer very involved in Sage development.  We are meeting early
next week in order to discuss some of the recent issues, and I welcome
comments or suggestions, which you can send publicly or to me in private.
David


>
> Matthias
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/89d80d9a-e991-4a0f-91d7-cfe5bc2b914en%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/89d80d9a-e991-4a0f-91d7-cfe5bc2b914en%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_k3A8zhEx2MKzY3edVh6kGdo0L3%3D7Ap1n8C4hEgre9OGg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Unify error for trying to invert non-invertible elements

[David Roe]

On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 8:18 PM 'Travis Scrimshaw' via sage-devel <
sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> For RuntimeError, I would make it sound like it tells you there is serious
> error occurring as it doesn't fall into any other error categories. This
> actually makes it the opposite of a catchall error.
>

The main scenario when I use a RuntimeError is when an assumption that I
never expected to be violated fails.  I agree with Travis that catchall is
not the right description for this error type.
David

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_kH9ZhgPt%2BR_8Mf3uMy%2BkM7sMcpNzD1jwjdvTBn9Vsijg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Unify error for trying to invert non-invertible elements

[David Roe]

I agree that there are cases that shouldn't be changed to an
ArithmeticError, and that grepping for "invertible" isn't sufficient.  But
I think with a narrower scope this change is a good idea: if the error
arises from attempting to invert a non-invertible element of a ring.

So +1 from me, with a manual check that the change seems appropriate.
David

On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 7:54 PM Dave Morris 
wrote:

> -1 from me.
>
> Looking at just a few uncovered some that I think are definitely not
> ArithmeticError.
>
> Examples:
> There is an occurrence of ValueError('{} is not invertible') in
> the lift_isometry method of cliffordalgebra.py.  Lifting an isometry is
> clearly not an arithmetic operation.  ValueError is correct here.
> There is an occurrence of TypeError('the A-basis is defined only
> when 2 is invertible') in the method to find an `A`-basis of an
> Iwahori-Hecke algebra.  Finding such a basis is clearly not an arithmetic
> operation.  Perhaps this should be a ValueError instead of a TypeError,
> though.
> RuntimeError("morphism is not invertible").  I think that finding
> the inverse of a morphism between two objects of a category is clearly not
> an arithmetic operation.  Perhaps this should be a ValueError rather than a
> RuntimeError.
>
> If you want to unify, I think ValueError might work.  But I think they all
> need to be inspected, not just assume a single error type fits.
>
> > On Feb 5, 2024, at 4:44 AM, 'Martin R' via sage-devel <
> sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > currently, when trying to invert a non-invertible element, one of the
> following errors is raised (found using `grep -r --include=*.{py,pyx}
> --color -nH --null -e "Error(.*invertible" *`):
> > • 21 ValueError('{} is not invertible')
> > • 11 ZeroDivisionError("element is not invertible")
> > • 10 TypeError('the A-basis is defined only when 2 is invertible')
> > • 8 ArithmeticError("self must be invertible to have a
> multiplicative order")
> > • 2 RuntimeError("morphism is not invertible")
> > • 2 NotImplementedError("matrix must be invertible")
> >
> > Travis and I would like to propose to unify these to "ArithmeticError".
> If nobody objects, I would prepare a PR within the next few days.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/d0637584-4908-4101-8e1b-74ec0477ff84n%40googlegroups.com
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/4A0E1F77-27A7-4DF3-BB18-636853BF4CC0%40deductivepress.ca
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_maKC%3DFUF63uZNwk7DNaYfwa0S0pxEc-cp6CrfmCcQ7dw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Implementing minimum_generating_set() function

[David Roe]

You can lift elements via the quotient map to get representatives of each
coset.  I'm not sure that this is wrapped in Sage, but using gap directly
you have:

sage: Pgap = p._libgap_()
sage: Ngap = N._libgap_()
sage: phi = Pgap.NaturalHomomorphismByNormalSubgroup(Ngap); phi
[ (2,3,4,5,6,7) ] -> [ f1^2 ]
sage: PN = phi.ImagesSource() # the quotient as an isomorphic group
sage: preimages_gens = [phi.PreImagesRepresentative(g) for g in
PN.GeneratorsOfGroup()]
sage: preimages_gens
[(2,4,6)(3,5,7)]
sage: all_preimages = [phi.PreImagesRepresentative(g) for g in PN.List()]
sage: all_preimages
[(), (2,4,6)(3,5,7), (2,6,4)(3,7,5)]

David

On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 10:58 AM 'Ruchit Jagodara' via sage-devel <
sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I think this is giving a group isomorphic to the actual quotient group but
> I need the actual quotient group. Therefor, I don't know how to find that
> exact group. Below is one example,
>
> sage: p = PermutationGroup([(2,3,4,5,6,7)])
> sage: N = p.minimal_normal_subgroups()[0]
> sage: N
> Subgroup generated by [(2,5)(3,6)(4,7)] of (Permutation Group with
> generators [(2,3,4,5,6,7)])
> sage: N.list()
> [(), (2,5)(3,6)(4,7)]
> sage: p.quotient(N)
> Permutation Group with generators [(1,2,3)]
> sage: _.list()
> [(), (1,2,3), (1,3,2)]
>
> If this is the collection of representative elements(for cosets) then
> ``1`` should not be in any of the permutations.
>
> I need a quotient group structure whose elements(the cosets) have the
> representative element (from the original group) and the normal subgroup
> (which was used to create the quotient group) as their properties or
> available in some other form.
> On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 10:33:21 PM UTC+5:30 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 19 January 2024 15:18:45 GMT, 'Ruchit Jagodara' via sage-devel <
>> sage-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> >In case my questions have caused any confusion, I am rephrasing them as
>> >below.
>> >
>> >I have a group G and its minimal normal subgroup N.
>> >
>> >I want to find G/N. Do you know how I can do that? (I also want G/N to
>> be
>> >an object of the same class as G.)
>>
>> It's G.quotient(N), no?
>>
>> >
>> >My another question is: How can I find the group operation of a group G?
>> >On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 7:13:50 PM UTC+5:30 Dima Pasechnik
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 11:39 AM 'Ruchit Jagodara' via sage-devel
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Actually, that won't work according to the implementation.
>> >>
>> >> sorry, I don't understand what won't work.
>> >> Did you mean to ask a different question?
>> >>
>> >> > Can you please take a look at the code I wrote (although I have not
>> >> written it according to codestyle of sage, yet. But I will do that
>> when the
>> >> code starts working.), where minimum_generating_set is the main
>> function?
>> >> >
>> >> > Link-
>> >>
>> https://github.com/RuchitJagodara/sage/blob/8b642329b6d579c536511d5f1d1511fb842c9c54/src/sage/groups/libgap_wrapper.pyx#L405C1-L513C1
>> >> >
>> >> > I have implemented this code according to the research paper.
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, what paper are you talking about?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > The algorithm can find the minimum generating set in polynomial
>> time,
>> >> which is very cool! So, I thought it would be good to implement this
>> in
>> >> Sage, especially since the paper has been recently published.
>> >> >
>> >> > I've almost completed the code, but I'm unsure about how to find the
>> >> Quotient group and its representative elements. I need help with this.
>> >> >
>> >> > I've outlined my doubts in the code, which you can see in the
>> following
>> >> link:-
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://github.com/RuchitJagodara/sage/blob/8b642329b6d579c536511d5f1d1511fb842c9c54/src/sage/groups/libgap_wrapper.pyx#L478-L486
>> >> >
>> >> > GAP has a function named RightCosets that can be used to form a
>> quotient
>> >> group, but there is a problem: how can I find representative elements
>> of
>> >> that group? Additionally, how can I create a Quotient group using
>> >> RightCosets in Sage, given that the algorithm uses a recursive call,
>> and
>> >> the quotient group must have the ParentLibGAP.minimum_generating_set
>> >> function?
>> >> > On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 2:35:55 PM UTC+5:30 Dima Pasechnik
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Functions such as Group(), PermutationGroup() take such lists as
>> inputs.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 17 January 2024 06:35:07 GMT, 'Ruchit Jagodara' via sage-devel <
>> >> sage-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> And to implement the function, I want a function that takes a list
>> of
>> >> generators and returns a group. Does anyone know of any function that
>> can
>> >> do this?
>> >> >>> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 8:38:18 PM UTC+5:30 Ruchit Jagodara
>> >> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >>  I am implementing the minimum_generating_set function in Sage,
>> but I
>> >> am facing some issues, such as where I should implement that function
>> as my

Re: [sage-devel] Application for NumFOCUS affiliation of SageMath

[David Roe]

I agree with Dima that 2 days is not enough time to gather feedback.  Is
there any reason for the quick turnaround time?
David
P.S. I'm sorry about disappearing from the other thread about disputed
PRs.  I will try to summarize the discussion on that thread and call for a
vote shortly.

On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 8:55 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> Over the years, it has been suggested that our project seek affiliation
> with the NumFocus organization (https://numfocus.org/)
>
> *2016:* E.M. Bray asks in
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/8-BfX8KxFuI/m/CQRmz_3vDQAJ:  Is
> there any particular objection about approaching NumFOCUS [...]? (there is
> no objection or any response for that matter)
>
> *2018: *E.M. Bray's 2018 sage-devel post (
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/aY0GVqBwFkI/m/cTqfaBN5AQAJ)
> gives a great overview on benefits for us and the difference between
> "Affiliated projects" and "Sponsored projects"; in the same thread, D.V.
> Pasechnik reports having been put in charge of co-leading it by William,
> but notes his reservations about CoC; Jason Grout reports having given
> NumFOCUS people a heads-up.
>
> *2019:* V. Delecroix brings up NumFOCUS (
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/sGFOYBeEq-Q/m/NUCfS2zhAQAJ), S.
> Lelievre points to the 2018 post, E.M. Bray follows up with a discussion of
> questions of governance.
>
> *2022:* D.V. Pasechnik notes that the NumFOCUS effort "appears to be
> stalled".
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/G7qZkzjWDZU/m/MgrEqTqJAQAJ
>
> *As of today, 2024,* in my opinion, SageMath is clearly not able to meet
> the additional requirements of a NumFOCUS Sponsored Project (
> https://numfocus.org/projects-overview): "A transparent, publicly visible
> governance model" (), "A roadmap outlining high priority work areas"
> (although my modularization project provides
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/29705 provides a viable candidate
> for > 50% of it).
>
> *But we can easily apply to become a NumFOCUS Affiliated Project; it's 21
> easy questions in a slightly awkward web form (*
> https://numfocus.typeform.com/to/VUPE35?typeform-source=numfocus.org)*.
> The next deadline is Monday January 15*, and I will turn in an
> application on behalf of the project unless I hear serious, qualified
> objections.
>
> Below are my draft responses to the 21 questions; any suggestions and
> corrections are very welcome.
>
> 
> Question 1
> Does your project have a contributor Code of Conduct?
> *Yes*
>
> Question 2
> What is the name of your project?
>
> *SageMath*
> Question 3
> Please provide the url of your project's (primary) repo:
>
> *https://github.com/sagemath/sage *
> Question 4
> Your project's website:
>
> *https://www.sagemath.org/ *
> Question 5
> Please provide a summary description of your project in a few sentences:
> *Comprehensive mathematical software system*
>
> Question 6
> Does your project have a logo?
>
> *Yes*
>
> Question 7
> Please upload a .svg file of your project's logo. A "square" format is
> best.
> *982721.png*
>
> Question 8
> Your project's Twitter handle or other social media handles/urls:
> *https://twitter.com/sagemath ,
> https://mathstodon.xyz/@sagemath , *
> *https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sage-Math/26593144945
> , *
> Question 9
> Why do you want your project to join NumFOCUS?
> *TBD*
>
> Question 10
> Are you applying for Fiscal Sponsorship or Affiliation? For more
> information, see https://numfocus.org/projects-overview
>
> *B. affiliation*
> Question 11
> How does your project relate to or integrate with the existing ecosystem
> of NumFOCUS tools?
> *Cython, CVXpy, igraph, IPython, Jupyter, Matplotlib, NetworkX, NumPy,
> SciPy, SymPy are dependencies of SageMath. Additionally, volunteers
> maintain conda-forge packaging of SageMath.*
>
> Question 12
> Describe how your project furthers the NumFOCUS mission:
> https://numfocus.org/community/mission
> *SageMath is mathematical software with an integration mission. *
>
> Question 13
> How many active contributors does your project currently have?
>
> *70*
> Question 14
> Any comments you’d like to make on the number of your active contributors:
>
> *as per
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/graphs/contributors?from=2023-02-09=2024-01-13=c
> *
> Question 15
> What is your project doing to attract and/or mentor new contributors and
> maintainers?
>
> *Organize virtual and in-person workshops, participate in Google Summer of
> Code*
> Question 16
> Where do you host conversations about project development and governance
> (e.g. mailing lists, forums, etc.), and how many participants do you have?
>
> *https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel
> , TBD 

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Policy for disputed PRs: discussion

[David Roe]

Let's try to focus on the policy proposal, rather than specific
disagreements on individual PRs.

Dima, I'm sorry that you're feeling frustrated with the whole process.  It
may be helpful to have additional directions about the overall strategy for
Sage's build system, but that's better put off to another thread.
David

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:48 PM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 9:25 PM Kwankyu Lee  wrote:
> >
> > Meanwhile, Matthias and Dima spent lots of mental energy to produce a
> prime example showing why we need the policy:
> >
> > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36726
> >
> > Please come down from sun-shining deck to the murky bottom of our ship
> to see the danger that might drown all of us...
>
> well, I am trying to pull the ship into the sea of normal Python
> packages, while participating in the endless bloating up of the build
> system and the external packages (because everything must be built
> from source, as if we toil for one of super-paranoid 3-letter
> agencies)
> we are drowning in.
>
> Like, adding by hand hundreds of 1-line text files to basically
> duplicate what's known to pip.
>
> See e.g. https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36777
> (WIP, where I'm supposed to add about 400 such files by copy/paste
> from https://repology.org/)
> - totally unneeded, we just should not be shipping Jupyter and
> IPython. They can be pip-installed just fine.
>
> We could have removed the bloat of "toolchain" years ago. No major
> Python package/system ships
> compilers, and vendored Python. No major Python system ships anything
> Jupyter  (E.g. look at scipy, sympy).
> Meanwhile Mattias couldn't even part with Cygwin deadwood:
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36782
>
> I am hating this senseless process more and more. Other people who
> work on the build system aren't exactly happy with the direction this
> is all going to,
> either.
>
> Dima
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/8b07f03b-b60a-4cce-9dd9-59925bdf15c1n%40googlegroups.com
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq35iKf1EkaLkccvNp7kd9e254QD5Y4%2B1BoFROJL2R1iiQ%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_kif5KcLFTdWVXMs8acbkg6iDxCQinF6SO_81Uavkt6uQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[sage-devel] Policy for disputed PRs: discussion

[David Roe]

Hi all,
I'm writing about an issue that I think is causing substantial harm to the
Sage community: the only current mechanism we have for resolving a
disagreement is to call a vote on this email list.  There are certainly
times where this is an appropriate response, and I think it's still
reasonable for policy disagreements or major decisions, but I would like to
create an alternative resolution process that doesn't require emailing a
list with 2578 members.

The need for such a process is highlighted by several recent disputes; see
#36694  and #35403
 for example, but there are
others.  The particular case I would like to address is where there is a
general consensus, but one person (or a few people) disagree.

Here is a proposed policy, which I am happy to revise:

If there are at least twice as many developers in favor of a change as
there are opposed (which may include the author of a PR), then any
developer may set the PR to positive review and those opposed should not
set it back, as long as both of the following conditions are satisfied:
* it has been at least one week since an initial objection was raised,
* all of the participants being counted in favor have commented on the PR
since the initial objection.

Of course, consensus is preferable, and this policy would not relieve us
all of the responsibility to make persuasive arguments in favor of our
positions.  But I think we need a mechanism of this kind when consensus
can't be reached.  Also note that an objector is welcome to attempt to
bring others into the discussion on their side if they remain firmly
opposed.

I hope that others can suggest improvements to the idea above, and remind
everyone to keep the discussion positive and civil.  I plan to call a vote
on whatever proposal comes out of our discussion.
David

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_m7JdcQxLgCMREiNofGKUnzhKC%3D4AUtfVn3515mTE-M_g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: gcc problems on MacOS

[David Roe]

Thank you Matthias; clearing out /usr/local/include/flint* and
/usr/local/flint* solved the problem.
David

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 5:51 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> The real error from your log:
>
> sage/algebras/quatalg/quaternion_algebra_element.cpp:22735:3: error:
> 'fmpz_poly_scalar_mul_mpz' is deprecated. Use 'fmpz_poly_scalar_mul_fmpz'
> instead.
>   fmpz_poly_scalar_mul_mpz(__pyx_v_self->x, __pyx_v_self->x,
> __pyx_v_4sage_8algebras_7quatalg_26quaternion_algebra_element_T1);
>   ^
> ///usr/local/include/flint/fmpz_poly.h:1263:34: note: expanded from
> macro 'fmpz_poly_scalar_mul_mpz'
> #define fmpz_poly_scalar_mul_mpz _Pragma("GCC error
> \"'fmpz_poly_scalar_mul_mpz' is deprecated. Use 'fmpz_poly_scalar_mul_fmpz'
> instead.\"")
>  ^
> :433:6: note: expanded from here
>  GCC error "'fmpz_poly_scalar_mul_mpz' is deprecated. Use
> 'fmpz_poly_scalar_mul_fmpz' instead."
>  ^
>
> Your config.log says that you are using flint from SPKG. Above refers to a
> FLINT installation in /usr/local, likely incompatible FLINT 3. Best to
> uninstall that
>
>
> On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:46:18 PM UTC-8 David Roe wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to build Sage 10.2.rc4 on MacOS 13.3.1 and have been running
>> into multiple errors, some possibly due to Apple upgrading my OS when my
>> laptop went in for repair.  I've managed to get past all of Sage's
>> dependencies, and am currently stuck on an error in sagelib:
>>
>> g++ -std=gnu++11 -std=gnu++11 -bundle -undefined dynamic_lookup -isysroot
>> /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/SDKs/MacOSX13.sdk
>> -L/Users/roed/sage/sage-10.2.rc4/local/lib -Wl,-rpath,
>>  -L/Users/roed/sage/sage-10.2.rc4/local/lib -lflint -lgmp -lSingular
>> -lpolys -lflint -lmpfr -lgmp -lfactory -lflint -lmpfr -lgmp -lntl -lgmp
>> -lomalloc -lsingular_resources -lgsl -lopenblas -lm -o
>> build/lib.macosx-13-x86_64-cpython-311/sage/symbolic/
>> expression.cpython-311-darwin.so -lpari
>> error: command '/Users/roed/sage/sage-10.2.rc4/local/libexec/ccache/gcc'
>> failed with exit code 1
>> (see config.log <https://math.mit.edu/~roed/2023_11_20_config.log> and
>> sagelib-10.2.rc4.log <https://math.mit.edu/~roed/sagelib-10.2.rc4.log> for
>> more details)
>>
>> Previously, I did
>> xcode-select --install
>> sudo xcode-select --switch /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools
>> brew install gcc
>> to get past a build error in scipy
>> <https://math.mit.edu/~roed/scipy-1.11.3.log>
>> ../meson.build:82:0: ERROR: Compiler gfortran cannot compile programs.
>>
>> I noticed that this is the first g++ call after a bunch of gcc calls, but
>> it doesn't seem to be the first g++ call overall.  Any ideas?
>> David
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/20f5c300-b82f-48f7-a0fa-a4e978f55030n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/20f5c300-b82f-48f7-a0fa-a4e978f55030n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3D2Oy0_kSG-%3DJxK%2BLnXN3yS6eCjE%3DKJ3%3DBMYB-tRHZmmg%40mail.gmail.com.

[sage-devel] gcc problems on MacOS

[David Roe]

I'm trying to build Sage 10.2.rc4 on MacOS 13.3.1 and have been running
into multiple errors, some possibly due to Apple upgrading my OS when my
laptop went in for repair.  I've managed to get past all of Sage's
dependencies, and am currently stuck on an error in sagelib:

g++ -std=gnu++11 -std=gnu++11 -bundle -undefined dynamic_lookup -isysroot
/Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/SDKs/MacOSX13.sdk
-L/Users/roed/sage/sage-10.2.rc4/local/lib -Wl,-rpath,
 -L/Users/roed/sage/sage-10.2.rc4/local/lib -lflint -lgmp -lSingular
-lpolys -lflint -lmpfr -lgmp -lfactory -lflint -lmpfr -lgmp -lntl -lgmp
-lomalloc -lsingular_resources -lgsl -lopenblas -lm -o
build/lib.macosx-13-x86_64-cpython-311/sage/symbolic/
expression.cpython-311-darwin.so -lpari
error: command '/Users/roed/sage/sage-10.2.rc4/local/libexec/ccache/gcc'
failed with exit code 1
(see config.log  and
sagelib-10.2.rc4.log  for
more details)

Previously, I did
xcode-select --install
sudo xcode-select --switch /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools
brew install gcc
to get past a build error in scipy

../meson.build:82:0: ERROR: Compiler gfortran cannot compile programs.

I noticed that this is the first g++ call after a bunch of gcc calls, but
it doesn't seem to be the first g++ call overall.  Any ideas?
David

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mYLxHuyCqpFTs09nmr0Z9J2fYeBuMA4pvh3a1j_PVq5w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Pillow built without jpeg support in Sage 10.2.rc3

[David Roe]

I'm not aware of why we were suppressing jpeg support before, but this
sounds like a good idea to me.
David

On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 9:48 AM Eric Gourgoulhon 
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Pillow provides the Python Imaging Library (PIL)
> https://pillow.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
> and is a standard package in Sage.
>
> Now, in Sage 10.2.rc3, the following code
>
> g = plot(sin(x)) # to generate a png figure
> g.save("fig.png")  #
> from PIL import Image
> img = Image.open("fig.png")
> img_rgb = img.convert("RGB")
> img_rgb.save("fig.jpg")
>
> returns
>
> OSError: encoder jpeg not available
>
> This is actually not surprising since the file
> SAGE_ROOT/build/pkgs/pillow/spkg-install.in
> contains the line:
>
> PILLOW_CONFIG_SETTINGS="-C debug=true -C jpeg=disable
> $PILLOW_CONFIG_SETTINGS"
>
> Is there any reason for "jpeg=disable" ?
> Providing PIL without jpeg support seems quite weird...
> This issue is not new and was already noticed already 5 years ago:
> https://ask.sagemath.org/question/43298
>
> A side effect of this is that the IPyhon  rendering of PIL Images via the
> rich output mechanism is broken in Sage 10.2.rc3 (but, for some reasons,
> not in Sage 10.1):
> in a Jupyter notebook, typing
>
> img = Image.open("fig.png")
> img
>
> does display the image but after an error message terminating by
> ValueError: Could not save to JPEG for display
> There is no such error message in Sage 10.1
>
> If we agree to restore jpeg support in Pillow, I have prepared a branch
> that does this for Sage 10.2 (simply suppressing the option "jpeg=disable"):
> https://github.com/egourgoulhon/sage/tree/pillow_jpeg
> and I am happy to submit a PR for this.
>
> Eric.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/e1a2bf34-d3e5-492b-942c-33b1fc8c3254n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3DqnJhUOK1ND3A7vuLgo_bTP-8kEHGEKojBWoQJQBZsKA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Issue with orders in number fields

[David Roe]

If you want the order generated by a, you can do

sage: K.=NumberField(x^2-10)
sage: OK=K.maximal_order()
sage: O = K.order(a)
sage: O.index_in(OK)
1

Note that this correctly fails in Nils' example:
sage: K.order(a^2)
...
ValueError: the rank of the span of gens is wrong

David

On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 11:54 AM Nils Bruin  wrote:

> Hi Justin,
>
> You can see the problem from:
>
> sage: O.ambient()
> Number Field in a0 with defining polynomial x^2 - 10 with a0 = a
>
> As you can see, the ambient field of O is not identical to K (which is the
> ambient field of OK). It is a field with an *embedding* into K, though, and
> it happens to be an isomorphism here.
>
> Mathematically, I think sage is right to have some reservation here. If we
> do
>
> sage: K.=NumberField(x^4-2)
> sage: OK=K.ring_of_integers()
> sage: b=a^2
> sage: O=ZZ[b]
> sage: O.ambient()
> Number Field in a0 with defining polynomial x^2 - 2 with a0 = a^2
>
> I think you see the problem: the field of fractions of ZZ[b] does not need
> to be (and in the above example isn't) equal to the parent of b.
>
> In this case, O wouldn't have a finite index in OK.
>
> For programmatic consistency, we generally avoid programming in
> "shortcuts" based on specific values: while ZZ[a] happens to be an order in
> the parent K of a if a generates it over QQ, we'd generally *not* special
> case that to then create ZZ[a] as an order in K, but still create this
> separate field with generator a0.
>
> It's perhaps inconvenient and pedantic, but I would think this one may
> even still be on the instructive side for having to explain to a student.
>
> On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 17:21:12 UTC-7 Justin C. Walker wrote:
>
>> Hi, all,
>>
>> I think I understand what’s going wrong, but I don’t understand how to
>> fix the following problem:
>>
>> sage: K.=NumberField(x^2-10)
>> sage: OK=K.maximal_order()
>> sage: O=ZZ[a]
>> sage: a in OK
>> True
>> sage: a in K
>> True
>> sage: a in O
>> True
>> sage: O.index_in(OK)
>>
>> ---
>> ValueErrorTraceback (most recent call
>> last)
>> ...Blooie
>> ValueError: other must have the same ambient number field as self.
>>
>> Have we just painted ourselves into a (figurative) corner?
>>
>> Pointers?  Suggestions?
>>
>> Thanks for any help.
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> --
>> Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large
>> Institute for the Absorption of Federal Funds
>> ---
>> While creating wives, God promised men
>> that good and obedient wives would be
>> found in all corners of the world.
>> Then He made the earth round.
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/91b7f3ea-fd89-446e-8a26-3e474414d32cn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_m%2BDdvtLUq5ouCEkNK6qo31upfkHqCLF_0R0DwTgmU1Nw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] How to make call to latex() not evaluate its content again?

[David Roe]

Even if adding some assumptions makes this particular integral evaluate
fully, the underlying problem may still show up in other cases.  I haven't
tracked it down fully (and probably won't spend more time on this), but the
error messages are coming from Sage's interface to Giac, via this function
in expression.pyx:

cpdef _latex_Expression(x):
return char_to_str(GEx_to_str_latex(&(x)._gobj))

I think it would be reasonable for Sage to do what the original poster
suggested, and turn integrals into \int in latex rather than trying to
evaluate them.
David

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 7:14 AM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 6:17 AM 'Nasser M. Abbasi' via sage-devel
>  wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes when calling integrate using algorithm such as maxima, it
> returns result which is not fully resolved but still have an integrate
> inside it.
> >
> > Next, when calling latex() on the anti-derivative this cause problems,
> because sage tried to calls maxima again on the integrate command inside
> the result.
> >
> > Is there a way to make latex() just convert the result without calling
> integrate again?
> > This results in problems like the following
> >
> > sage: latex(anti)
> > Not invertible Error: Bad Argument Value
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> >
> > Here is an example
>
> for this integral, I think you'd like to add
>
> assume(n,"integer")
> assume(n>0)
>
> Do you really want to work in the complex domain, not also
>
> assume(x>0)
> assume(c>0)
>
> ?
>
> Anyhow, this looks like a Maxima bug to me.
>
> Dima
>
>
> >
> > >sage
> > │ SageMath version 10.0, Release Date: 2023-05-20│
> > │ Using Python 3.11.3. Type "help()" for help.   │
> > sage: var('f x e n a p h g b c d q')
> > sage: anti=integrate(x*sec(a+b*log(c*x^n))^2,x, algorithm="maxima");
> > sage: latex(anti)
> >
> > Not invertible Error: Bad Argument Value
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> >
> > The result of maxima in this case has unresolved integrate inside it.
> This is the actual antiderivative
> >
> > sage: integrate(x*sec(a+b*log(c*x^n))^2,x, algorithm="maxima")
> > 2*(x^2*cos(2*b*log(x^n) + 2*a)*sin(2*b*log(c)) +
> x^2*cos(2*b*log(c))*sin(2*b*log(x^n) + 2*a) -
> 2*(2*b^2*n^2*cos(2*b*log(c))*cos(2*b*log(x^n) + 2*a) -
> 2*b^2*n^2*sin(2*b*log(c))*sin(2*b*log(x^n) + 2*a) + (b^2*cos(2*b*log(c))^2
> + b^2*sin(2*b*log(c))^2)*n^2*cos(2*b*log(x^n) + 2*a)^2 +
> (b^2*cos(2*b*log(c))^2 + b^2*sin(2*b*log(c))^2)*n^2*sin(2*b*log(x^n) +
> 2*a)^2 + b^2*n^2)*integrate((x*cos(2*b*log(x^n) + 2*a)*sin(2*b*log(c)) +
> x*cos(2*b*log(c))*sin(2*b*log(x^n) +
> 2*a))/(2*b^2*n^2*cos(2*b*log(c))*cos(2*b*log(x^n) + 2*a) -
> 2*b^2*n^2*sin(2*b*log(c))*sin(2*b*log(x^n) + 2*a) + (b^2*cos(2*b*log(c))^2
> + b^2*sin(2*b*log(c))^2)*n^2*cos(2*b*log(x^n) + 2*a)^2 +
> (b^2*cos(2*b*log(c))^2 + b^2*sin(2*b*log(c))^2)*n^2*sin(2*b*log(x^n) +
> 2*a)^2 + b^2*n^2), x))/(2*b*n*cos(2*b*log(c))*cos(2*b*log(x^n) + 2*a) +
> (b*cos(2*b*log(c))^2 + b*sin(2*b*log(c))^2)*n*cos(2*b*log(x^n) + 2*a)^2 -
> 2*b*n*sin(2*b*log(c))*sin(2*b*log(x^n) + 2*a) + (b*cos(2*b*log(c))^2 +
> b*sin(2*b*log(c))^2)*n*sin(2*b*log(x^n) + 2*a)^2 + b*n)
> >
> > Notice there is an integrate(...) command inside the above output. So
> maxima found it can't integrate that part and left the integrate command
> there. So I do not want this to be evaluated. I just need the latex
> conversion done keeping integrate as "\int{.}" without evaluating.
> >
> > This happens because sage was calling
> >
> > integrate((x*cos(2*b*log(x^n) + 2*a)*sin(2*b*log(c)) +
> x*cos(2*b*log(c))*sin(2*b*log(x^n) +
> 2*a))/(2*b^2*n^2*cos(2*b*log(c))*cos(2*b*log(x^n) + 2*a) -
> 2*b^2*n^2*sin(2*b*log(c))*sin(2*b*log(x^n) + 2*a) + (b^2*cos(2*b*log(c))^2
> + b^2*sin(2*b*log(c))^2)*n^2*cos(2*b*log(x^n) + 2*a)^2 +
> (b^2*cos(2*b*log(c))^2 + b^2*sin(2*b*log(c))^2)*n^2*sin(2*b*log(x^n) +
> 2*a)^2 + b^2*n^2), x)
> > Not invertible Error: Bad Argument Value
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Not invertible Error: Bad Argument Value
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > Undef/Unsigned Inf encountered in limit
> > and these go on forever it seems
> >
> > And getting these error. The 

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Voting: Block-scoped optional tag and the keyword

[David Roe]

I vote for (A)

On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 5:13 AM Eric Gourgoulhon 
wrote:

> I vote for (A)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/1931486a-b228-402b-b2b7-42945e3fd18dn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nkpO2%3DVrQPvgthf%2BtbZUwRbT4SLpBax134BwP_akU--g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] ping - please cast you vote: VOTE: Follow NEP 29: Recommended Python version

[David Roe]

Thanks for restarting the discussion Tobias.  From my perspective, there
are several things that can move this conversation forward.
1. More clarity on how NEP-29 will be implemented in Sage.  In particular,
that policy just guarantees a particular time frame during which Python
*will* be supported, but doesn't describe what happens afterward.  Once the
window is passed, is someone (who?) going to proactively update build
scripts to prohibit the old version of python?  Or does it just grant
permission for people to use features that are not available in the old
Python, and merging such a PR will also involve updating the build
requirements?
2. A wiki page. Currently, the arguments for and against this change are
pretty scattered.  Tobias (and Dima), could you create a wiki page where
pros and cons are summarized?  Once you do, I would suggest running it by
Matthias, since a lot of the arguments against it have come from him.
3. A timeline.  I'm going to suggest three weeks for discussion, with
voting starting July 18 and ending one week later on July 25 (anywhere on
earth).  I know that there have been conversations on and off about this
issue for a while, but I think having some time dedicated to focused
discussion may help others feel like they have a full grasp of the issue.
4. Additional people getting involved in the conversation.  Tobias, Dima
and Matthias all clearly feel quite strongly about this issue and have been
involved in it for a while.  Other people can hopefully bring some more
perspectives, suggesting compromises or giving additional perspectives.  In
the end, we *need* other people to vote, so that Tobias, Dima and Matthias
can get some resolution on this.
5. A moderator.  Several people asked me to moderate last time, and I'll do
my best for this discussion.  I'll start with a few requests for everyone
involved.
 * First, I think multiple short, quick rebuttals are not a good idea in a
heated email discussion.  We have three weeks.  Take the time to collect
your thoughts and respond to the whole of an argument.  If appropriate, add
things to the pros and cons on the wiki page.  Most of all, take the time
to read what you've written and think about how it will be received by both
the people you're arguing with and the thousands of people subscribed to
sage-devel.
 * Second, take a step back and think about what you can do to make this
environment more welcoming and pleasant for everyone.  I know several
people involved have said that the issues we're discussing, and the way
we're discussing them, have lessened their desire to contribute to Sage,
and I think that would be a tragedy.  All three of you are critical members
of this community, and I don't want to lose you.  I'm not going to
prescribe anything specific, but I think it would help if everyone can
think about ways to show that you value the people involved, even if we
have specific technical disagreements.
 * Third, while work goes forward on a summarizing wiki page, I'd like to
hear suggestions from others about how to make the process better.  Feel
free to email the list or write to me directly.

We made it through the github discussion, and we can make it through this.
Stay positive.
David

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 10:14 AM Tobias Diez 
wrote:

> Any suggestions on how to move forward now? Should I simply open a new
> vote or are there still open questions or a need to discuss certain aspects
> of the proposal?
>
> On Sunday, 4 June 2023 at 19:49:23 UTC+2 G. M.-S. wrote:
>
>>
>> For the benefit of all of us (including Dima, Matthias and Tobias), would
>> it be possible to start afresh, without any reference whatsoever to these 3
>> linked discussions?
>>
>> Also, would it be possible for David to act somehow as a "moderator"?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Guillermo
>>
>> On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 at 17:37, Tobias Diez  wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, 3 June 2023 at 19:31:18 UTC+8 Marc Culler wrote:
>>>
>>> That is what always happens when people try to force a vote before there
>>> has been a discussion of sufficient depth to allow a consensus to form.
>>>
>>>
>>> To clarify since this point came up before: The discussion about this
>>> topic started over two years ago in
>>> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/30384, then this February
>>> continued on the sage mailing list (
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/j1cwbTU8aOU/m/2sTiwdKPBQAJ)
>>> and in April in the PR https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/35403.
>>> However, only Matthias, Dima and me joined the discussion. Since we three
>>> couldn't come to a consensus, I opened the vote in order to get the input
>>> from the broader sage community (following advice from David and William).
>>>
>>
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> 

Re: [sage-devel] Modularization project: V. The blocs

[David Roe]

How do you handle files that depend on multiple libraries (like both FLINT
and NTL for example)?  Are these only included in sagemath-standard?
David

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 2:19 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:07:36 AM UTC-7 David Roe wrote:
>
> I assume that the MANIFEST.in.m4 file contains a list of what's in each
> package, right?
>
>
> That's right, this is the current mechanism.
> I have plans for switching this to something more maintainable, which will
> also enforce that the set of modules is exactly partitioned into the
> various didstributions.
>
>
> There's also sagemath-objects and sagemath-categories (are there any
> others?);
>
>
> Yes, these are two of the most fundamental distributions. See this
> diagram for the runtime dependency relations
> <https://sagemath-tobias.netlify.app/developer/packaging_sage_library.html#hierarchy-of-distribution-packages>
> .
>
> sagemath-objects
> <https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/tree/t/32432/modularization_of_sagelib__break_out_a_separate_package_sagemath_polyhedra/pkgs/sagemath-objects>
> has everything that makes the coercion system work (including functorial
> constructions).
>
>  On top of that, sagemath-categories
> <https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/tree/t/32432/modularization_of_sagelib__break_out_a_separate_package_sagemath_polyhedra/pkgs/sagemath-categories>
>  provides
> the full set of categories, basic rings, functions, without introducing
> non-Python library dependencies.
>
> can you send analogous links for those so that we can understand how the
> library is being broken up into pieces?  Is every file part of exactly one
> package (aside from sagemath-standard, which is the union of all of them?).
>
>
> It depends on whether we're talking about the modules directly included in
> (shipped by) a distribution package, or also the modules shipped by the
> declared runtime dependencies of the distribution package.
> Each module is shipped by exactly one distribution package.
> sagemath-standard will ship very few modules directly, but will have lots
> of other distributions as declared runtime dependencies, which will be
> installed automatically.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/da02f9b5-a33c-4848-8fbf-ba6ece6a3580n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/da02f9b5-a33c-4848-8fbf-ba6ece6a3580n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_meo-n%2BNzP9mC%3DoU7AOgkhnt90jWMnFBhr2EyMQ04sccw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Modularization project: V. The blocs

[David Roe]

I assume that the MANIFEST.in.m4 file contains a list of what's in each
package, right?  There's also sagemath-objects and sagemath-categories (are
there any others?); can you send analogous links for those so that we can
understand how the library is being broken up into pieces?  Is every file
part of exactly one package (aside from sagemath-standard, which is the
union of all of them?).  From the quick glance I've taken so far, the
division looks pretty reasonable.
David

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 1:58 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> (index of previous posts: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/29705)
>
> A common wisdom applies: *Do your combinatorial explosions at home, not
> in public.*
>
> In other words, we should not attempt to define a distribution package for
> every possible community or subfield of mathematics that Sage supports.
>
> The proposed design instead introduces 3 types of distribution packages:
>
> *Packages that are named after a basic mathematical structure* but may
> cover a wide range of generalizations/applications of this
> structure. People who work in a specialized research area will of course
> recognize what structures they need. But the down-to-earth naming also
> creates discoverability for a broader audience. Not many more distribution
> packages than these 7 are needed:
> - sagemath-combinat
> :
> everything combinatorial except for graphs.
> - sagemath-graphs
> :
> also provides posets, designs, abstract complexes, quivers, etc.
> - sagemath-groups
> 
> - sagemath-modules
> :
> also has matrices, tensors, homology, coding theory, etc.
> - sagemath-polyhedra
> :
> also provides fans, hyperplane arrangements, etc.
> - sagemath-schemes
> 
> - sagemath-symbolics
> 
>
> *Packages that are named after an upstream library.* This makes technical
> sense because the dependencies will be localized to this distribution
> package, but it also helps give attribution and visibility to these
> libraries and projects that Sage depends on. (These narrowly focused
> packages could also invigorate collaboration with the upstream projects.)
> Examples:
> - sagemath-flint
> 
> - sagemath-gap
> 
> - sagemath-giac
> 
> - sagemath-ntl
> 
>
> *Packages that are named after a technical functionality. *
> - sagemath-plot
> 
> - sagemath-repl
> :
> The top-level interactive environment with the preparser.
> - sagemath-standard
> :
> Everything as provided by a standard installation of the Sage distribution.
>
> Each of the distribution packages can define a list of *extras*
> (nicknames for sets of other distribution packages that provide additional
> advertised features). When using *pip* to install a distribution, users
> can use square bracket notation
> 
> to add (adjoin?) these extras.
>
> Need fast linear algebra over GF(*pⁿ*) and over cyclotomic fields?
> Use *pip install "sagemath-modules
> 

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Why matrix powers are slower over Integers(p) than in ZZ?

[David Roe]

The problem is that Sage doesn't have a specialized type for integers mod N:
sage: type(M3)


The best solution would be to create one, but of course that's a lot of
work.  Another possibility would be to change the __pow__ method for
integer matrices to not ignore the modulus argument.  As a workaround you
can either use pari (as you discovered), or use an integer matrix and
occasionally reduce the coefficients.
David

On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 9:18 AM Georgi Guninski  wrote:

> pari/gp appears significantly faster:
>
> sage: time M31=M3**n
> CPU times: user 11.2 s, sys: 8.11 ms, total: 11.2 s
> Wall time: 11.3 s
> sage: M3g=gp(M3)
> sage: time M32=M3g**n
> CPU times: user 617 µs, sys: 2.79 ms, total: 3.41 ms
> Wall time: 119 ms
> sage: M32==gp(M31)
> True
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAGUWgD829%2BHC5D-YpvdR6hab7gHAfc9cGQTN%2BGft-DsW8T526A%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mMXR%3D_TxZnTYLBFpM2v1d8K74qJZvV78iiTZ0vOyNisQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: ping - please cast you vote: VOTE: Follow NEP 29: Recommended Python version

[David Roe]

I will delete any messages to this thread in the next week.  I encourage
people who have not yet engaged to think about the issue and see if they
have a compromise to suggest.
David

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 5:24 PM G. M.-S.  wrote:

>
> Hi all.
>
> I would like to ask for a moratorium of at least 1 month on this
> discussion, as it is leading nowhere.  As a corollary, no changes on
> anything related to it for the time being.
>
> I would also like to ask if anybody could enforce this moratorium.
>
> And in addition I would like to take the occasion to thank everybody
> involved in SageMath, which is a wonderful project.
>
> Repeating an evidence, all of you are important.
>
> Best,
>
> Guillermo
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2023 at 21:59, G. M.-S.  wrote:
>
>>
>> Dima and Matthias,
>>
>> I completely agree with Nils.
>>
>> Could you (both of you) take a short vacation from SageMath, please?
>>
>> More globally, I propose to stop this discussion completely for a few
>> days.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Guillermo
>>
>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 at 21:14, Nils Bruin  wrote:
>>
>>> @dima, @matthias : this public forum is not an appropriate venue to
>>> discuss personal disagreements. From what you both write I get the
>>> impression you actually have a lot of common ground and only a few
>>> differences in opinion, but that personalities and discussion styles
>>> exaggerate the disagreements. I hope a moderator steps in to warn you about
>>> code of conduct and making discussions personal. In the mean time, stepping
>>> back and let things cool down is probably the better thing to do, since I
>>> don't see a positive outcome from continuing your current back-and-forth,
>>> and it's toxic for other people following the thread to be confronted by
>>> such discord between respected members of the community.
>>>
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CANnG189AmBchnjQsG__JeV7AZob1HfkCw%2B_zt7a1pmzu3oESkA%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_me4wYdf5FXY6fLHtpnD-ZJuOFOW6nf4jCDCoxUjCHc2w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] cysignals/sig_on...sig_off

[David Roe]

I've banned the user.
David

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:22:25 PM UTC-4 dim...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 5:12 PM sumaiya qureshi
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hey All!
> >
> > Please let me know I am included within the accepted organization or not?
> >
> > According to Karachi, Pakistan timezone last night was my GSoC'23 result.
> >
> > Please guide me through the procedure how to check my GSoC'23 result.
> >
> > Name :- Sumaiya Qureshi (Karachi, Pakistan)
> >
> > I opted for Improvements to mathematics interaction with the desired 
> organization "Oppia" within Web category.
> >
> > Let me know if you all sage developers want further information 
> regarding myself to search my result.
>
> Why are you spamming this group by posting several copies of the same 
> message?
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sumaiya.
> >
> > On Mon, May 1, 2023, 7:03 AM David Roe  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 10:49 AM 'jonatha...@googlemail.com' via 
> sage-devel  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Does cysignals get enough support to keep going or do we want to try a 
> different approach? This different approach will for sure not be as 
> efficient, but will probably need less effort to maintain.
> >>
> >>
> >> sig_on/sig_off can be used in library interfaces where the performance 
> impact may be noticeable. I'd like to see a direct comparison before 
> putting in much effort to switch to something else.
> >> David
> >>
> >>> --
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/a8883260-2b4b-4cd4-8980-f1fea2070c10n%40googlegroups.com
> .
> >>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mDQLMgn6DjuPbHZ3tbdvRrFkMDTNVdQPW-SydvD%3DvDRA%40mail.gmail.com
> .
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAOgrLb30UX3w5X2n1W%2BkXfjWZFRoVPc5BUMC_qFVkU07WXcobg%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/b11b1716-e162-4f90-bf1d-8bf02c697cf3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] cysignals/sig_on...sig_off

[David Roe]

On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 10:49 AM 'jonatha...@googlemail.com' via sage-devel
 wrote:

> Does cysignals get enough support to keep going or do we want to try a
> different approach? This different approach will for sure not be as
> efficient, but will probably need less effort to maintain.
>

sig_on/sig_off can be used in library interfaces where the performance
impact may be noticeable.  I'd like to see a direct comparison before
putting in much effort to switch to something else.
David

-- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/a8883260-2b4b-4cd4-8980-f1fea2070c10n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mDQLMgn6DjuPbHZ3tbdvRrFkMDTNVdQPW-SydvD%3DvDRA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Sage 10.0.rc0 released

[David Roe]

I'm sorry to have prompted another flame war, but please keep the tone
polite Dima and Matthias.  I know that you're both frustrated at this issue
being unresolved, but it's not appropriate to have a fight like this that
goes to 2570 different people's inboxes, with frequent emails sniping at
each other.

I do think it would be valuable for other people on this list to offer some
thoughts on whether Sage should prioritize reducing the number of
foundational packages we offer in the short term (as Dima is advocating) or
keeping them to help maintain support (as Matthias is advocating).  That
becomes less possible if the tone on this thread gets out of hand.
David


On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 3:18 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 12:14:26 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> This discussion happened 2 years ago
>
>
> That's correct, and you have not brought forward any new points.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/27c5cb9d-76da-48d8-a7e9-defa8453a6cen%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mzNg%3D5EyjBjOXMSvTKEECWW7QD%2BzyQCkZ1Na45kk5GSw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Sage 10.0.rc0 released

[David Roe]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 6:41 AM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:

> PS. I think openssl spkg should just be removed from Sage, it serves
> no purpose as far as I can tell.
>

For a long time it was very important for getting a functional Sage on
MacOS; is that no longer the case?
David


>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 10:32 AM Thierry
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sage's current openssl version (3.0.5) hass several "High severity"
> > vulnerabilities, see https://www.openssl.org/news/vulnerabilities.html
> >
> > It would be nice to have the fixes included in the next Sage release. I
> am not
> > using github, here is a pull request (literally) to fix this :
> >
> >   git pull
> https://lipn.univ-paris13.fr/~monteil/hebergement/sage/sage.git
> openssl.3.0.8
> >
> > (commit hash : 997a6bd35a17f5511bb12552bd676597b09f1eaf)
> > I checked the hash of the tarballs against the GPG signatures by
> upstream developers.
> >
> > Tarball at : https://www.openssl.org/source/openssl-3.0.8.tar.gz
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Thierry
> >
> > P.S. Note that 3.1.0. has been very recently released, however 3.0.x is
> LTS and will
> > not have structural changes. Just in case, here is a verified branch :
> >
> >   git pull
> https://lipn.univ-paris13.fr/~monteil/hebergement/sage/sage.git
> openssl.3.1.0
> >
> > (commit hash : 9229a2be66dc0e4f2e3f677aa515a33bfe72a873)
> > Tarball at : https://www.openssl.org/source/openssl-3.1.0.tar.gz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Le Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 07:46:00AM -0700, Volker Braun a écrit :
> > > As always, you can get the latest beta version from the "develop" git
> > > branch. Alternatively, the self-contained source tarball is at
> > > http://www.sagemath.org/download-latest.html
> > >
> > >
> > > f3acd42678a (tag: 10.0.rc0, github/develop) Updated SageMath version to
> > > 10.0.rc0
> > > eca2a773d08 gh-35543: Cleaning set partition
> > > 9d8c9c05117 gh-35542: some fixes for cython-lint in various places
> > > e1e119463ae gh-35534: some cython-lint fixes in matroids/
> > > 133a345bacb gh-35533: Fix bug in graph.maximum_average_degree
> > > 3c2ba826156 gh-35530: some minor details in interfaces
> > > 12cea800735 gh-35526: fix pycodestyle E271 and E502 in pyx files
> > > a03f09cf594 gh-35525: cython-lint and some doc cleanup for
> expression.pyx
> > > e9b67cc117a gh-35521: `sage.combinat.sf`: re-enable a doctest
> > > cc0ea4d66f4 gh-35518: Improve PolynomialSequence.connected_components()
> > > a38a25a261e gh-35515: Bug in integer valued polys
> > > 803c7aacaee gh-35514: Don't force ecl lisp with `maxima -l ecl` on
> command
> > > line.
> > > 20d2edd1736 gh-35513: Silence initialization of giac
> > > 64c205c7d51 gh-35512: Improve PolynomialSequence.connection_graph()
> > > implementation
> > > db2fa5d13b1 gh-35511: Fix Graph.add_clique() for one vertex
> > > 0ff23f67772 gh-35510: Make BooleanPolynomial.variables() way faster
> > > e3636bd579c gh-35509: some cython-linting in matrix/ folder
> > > 2c7e16e5faf gh-35507: fix pycodestyle E303 in schemes
> > > 98595ef8661 gh-35506: add check for pycodestyle E502 in python files
> > > 80f3fd99d04 gh-35504: `build/pkgs/sphinx_{copybutton,basic_ng}`: Add
> conda
> > > info
> > > 41c256ae647 gh-35499: Fix test output for ipywidgets 8.0.5, part deux
> > > 3740e145432 gh-35478: Remove unused code from GAP interface
> > > b25229b6647 gh-35476: scipy: Patch out test requiring internet access
> > > eafd5215a28 gh-35472: Implement the Feichtner-Yuzvinsky rings for
> lattices
> > > 957e627f023 gh-35465: Fix conda workflow
> > > 1fc3fee5bed gh-35463: Add iterator over minimum distance k dominating
> sets
> > > ecd162be3dc gh-35462: Iterator over the minimal distance k dominating
> sets
> > > c18a3fbfe72 gh-35446: add method is_simple to permutations
> > > ef68bee7ccf gh-35443: Fix slow doctests or mark # long time
> > > c005c006d4e gh-35431: Documentation improvements for rounding methods
> > > 15a5078afaa gh-35389: `sage.rings.finite_rings.residue_field`:
> > > Modularization fixes
> > > 9ff469adb9c gh-35375: Fix minimal kernel basis corner cases
> > > 55ebb79b65a gh-35306: `sage.groups.matrix_gps`: Modularization fixes
> for
> > > imports
> > > 8bcce63b6a1 gh-35305: `sage.quadratic_forms`: Modularization fixes for
> > > imports
> > > 97b45d80a7c (tag: 10.0.beta9) Updated SageMath version to 10.0.beta9
> > >
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-release" group.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-release+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-release/788f2bad-420b-463a-be98-4f11819d3288n%40googlegroups.com
> .
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-release" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-release+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web 

Re: [sage-devel] RealField isn't doing it right

[David Roe]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 8:15 PM aw  wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:19:45 PM UTC-6 Nils Bruin wrote:
>
>
> It may not be the default, but you can still have it! As referenced
> before, just execute upon startup:
>
> old_RealNumber=RealNumber
> def RealNumber(*args, **kwargs):
> return QQ(old_RealNumber(*args, **kwargs))
>
> You can place it in a startup file so that it is in force for all your
> subsequent sessions. See:
> https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/repl/startup.html
>
>
> Thanks for this, but that would be a global substitution, right?
>
> I'm arguing just for a local substitution, in the high-precision
> environments only.
>

It's not possible in Python to interpret 1.1 as 11/10 in a high-precision
environment and as a normal float otherwise, unless you do something that
"takes a lot of work," which you claimed you weren't trying to suggest.
David


>
> -aw
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/4f941e2d-a3af-4cde-97f4-fc9233ac52d2n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_kKta69QSM5bgMoedFWwFQhKV0e4G0u7aSs2RLF1Hie%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] RealField isn't doing it right

[David Roe]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 8:06 PM aw  wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:14:41 PM UTC-6 David Roe wrote:
>
> Did you read my message from last night?  I highlighted exactly the
> problems with what you're suggesting.
> David
>
>
> In that post you outlined some pretty heavy ways of doing it. Those would
> be a lot of work, with performance implications, integration implications,
> etc.
>
> I don't want you guys to have to do a lot of work. I'm suggesting a simple
> pre-processing solution that would take almost no work, and would have zero
> performance implications or integration implications.
>

That's what I tried to explain in that post, and what Nils and Dima have
explained as well.  You are incorrect that there are no performance or
integration implications.  You are literally suggesting that we interpret
1.1 as 11/10, and I explained why that was problematic.
David


> -aw
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/d489307e-d14b-4ede-a207-e53a5319d65fn%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/d489307e-d14b-4ede-a207-e53a5319d65fn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nuPdFVKq6%2Bgu9Na7f5xpMSsamXzpChOVFUD3QRKR%2BqBw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] RealField isn't doing it right

[David Roe]

Did you read my message from last night?  I highlighted exactly the
problems with what you're suggesting.
David

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 5:59 PM aw  wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:29:03 PM UTC-6 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> It is a problem, as e^1.1 cannot be represented exactly, and it is
> evaluated eagerly. To what precision should it be evaluated? To 200 bits?
> Then you will complain that you can't get what you want at 400 bits. Etc
> etc.
>
>
> "1.1" doesn't need to be evaluated, it needs to be replaced by "11/10", in
> pre-processing.
>
> I don't know the code involved, but I'll take a stab at one way it could
> be done, something like this: when the Sage interpreter is looking at the
> user-supplied string "RealLazyField(200)(e^1.1)", it knows that it is about
> to pass a parse of the string "e^1.1" on to RealLazyField. In this
> situation, where the receiver of the parse is RealLazyField, the
> interpreter can easily change its usual parsing of "1.1". Instead of some
> kind of float, it can parse it as the exact rational 11/10, and send the
> resulting parse of the whole expression to RealLazyField for evaluation. To
> RealLazyField, it's as if the user supplied string was
> "RealLazyField(200)(e^(11/10))".
>
> The details of how this gets done, don't matter.
>
> All that matters is that "1.1" gets replaced by "11/10".
>
> Do that any way you want.
>
> -aw
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/c4885432-5b32-46d9-895b-6d7fae260f0bn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mxXDKBogK-q9bUTAzt6tRienrscBzuzh4iX7avmVrf4Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] RealField isn't doing it right

[David Roe]

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 7:39 PM aw  wrote:

> On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 4:05:56 PM UTC-6 Nils Bruin wrote:
>
>  But you WON'T be computing with exact quantities in RealField(200) unless
> your number can be expressed as +- an unsigned 200-bit integer times a
> power of two, so you're very fundamentally using the wrong tool if you're
> interested in exact computation.
>
>
> If properly implemented, it can emulate exact computation followed by a
> truncation to finite precision.
>
> When I say a very high precision environment is for doing exact
> computation, I don't mean that it should handling infinite digit strings. I
> mean that the input-output function for such an environment should be
> identical to the input-output function of a hypothetical environment that
> *does* do the full exact computation and then truncates the answer to the
> requested precision.
>
> In other words, a very high precision environment should emulate an
> environment that does the full exact computation and truncates the result
> to finite precision before giving it to the user. And, this emulation
> should be perfect.
>
> That is the behavior that a very high precision environment is required to
> have.
>
> For input expressions that don't have float literals in them, it looks
> like RealField does have the required behavior!
>
> Example:
>
> RealField(200)(sqrt(2))
> 1.4142135623730950488016887242096980785696718753769480731767
>
> actual digits, from https://apod.nasa.gov/htmltest/gifcity/sqrt2.1mil:
> 1.41421356237309504880168872420969807856967187537694807317667...
>
> RealField here gives the exact value of sqrt(2) rounded to 59 digits,
> which is 196 bits.
>
> 196 bits is slightly under the requested 200, but let's no get sidetracked
> by that here.
>
> By the way, when I say "truncated", I mean any acceptable truncation
> method. Rounding is one such method.
>
> The main point is that based on this and other similar examples involving
> algebraic irrationals or transcendentals like e and pi, RealField looks
> like it is trying hard to be a good high precision environment.
>
> But for some input expressions, it fails to have the required behavior. It
> gives an output that is not any kind of truncation of the exact value.
>
> Here's a question: if in pre-processing we interpret all float literals as
> rationals, as Dima Pasechnik suggested could be an option in an earlier
> post, do these failures all disappear? Does RealField then fully meet the
> behavior requirements for a very high precision environment?
>
> If that one tiny change would make it a good environment, whose answers
> are always the exact answers truncated to the requested precision, then why
> the heck would you not make that change?
>
> It would give you something more useful than you have now, at no cost.
>

It's certainly not no cost.  Here are several problems with this proposal:
* If you simply interpret float literals as rationals, they will print as
rationals.  I would find this extremely surprising and annoying; it makes
Sage more difficult to use as a basic calculator (I use Sage for my taxes
for example).
* Something that Nils has alluded to a bit is performance.  The above issue
could be resolved with some work by making a new kind of real field parent
that stored elements internally as rational numbers (at least until you
applied a transcendental function) but printed as decimals.  But it would
then be susceptible to coefficient blowup, which can make some computations
with rationals (especially in linear algebra) drastically slower than
computations with floating point values.  Hiding the fact that real
literals are implemented as rationals means that even people who are aware
of such issues wouldn't be expecting.  And you still face similar problems
as soon as you apply a transcendental function, unless you go fully over to
the symbolic ring.

So I think a concrete version of Dima's suggestion would be
1. Implement a new field that stores elements internally as rationals,
printing as decimals to some precision (you could get a higher precision by
casting explicitly to RealField(prec), or by using .n(prec)).
2. Real literals would land in this field, which would have coercion maps
from Z and Q so arithmetic would be exact under the hood.
3. Coercion would go to the symbolic ring, so e^1.1 would live in the
symbolic ring (rather than RealField(53) where it lives now).  For lack of
annoyance it should probably still print as a 53-bit decimal, but you could
cast it to RealField(200) and it would give the correct result.  I guess
other transcendental functions (log, trig) would also land in the symbolics.
4. Live with the performance implications.  As Dima says, you can use RDF
if you want fast floating point arithmetic.  But it's already the case that
the symbolic ring is a performance trap for unwary users, and I'm not sure
it's a good idea encouraging more use of it implicitly.

This is a nontrivial project, though not unreasonable.  I'm 

Re: [sage-devel] RealField isn't doing it right

[David Roe]

I agree with William that you should refrain from insulting the Sage
developers, especially when the underlying problem comes from your
misunderstanding of how floating point arithmetic works.

To respond to the content of your message, finite precision real fields in
Sage are implemented using floating point arithmetic at a precision set
when creating the field.  As such, they can only exactly represent rational
numbers whose denominators are powers of 2 (and that lie within a certain
range, but that's not the issue here).  So 1.1 is rounded to the closest
number that can be represented in 53-bit arithmetic:
sage: x = 1.1
sage: x.as_integer_ratio()
(2476979795053773, 2251799813685248)
sage: factor(2251799813685248)
2^51

When you then try to cast to a field of higher precision, you only have
that rounded value, and the result is the same in the higher precision
field, but when you print it you get more digits since you explicitly asked
for a higher precision value.

There are several ways to avoid these kinds of issues.  First, you should
almost always refrain from working at a lower precision and then increasing
the precision: the result will not be accurate.  Second, you can try to
work in exact fields (like the rationals) as long as you can.  Third, you
can work with Sage's RealIntervalField and RealBallField to get actual
error bounds in your computations.

If you have questions about this, we might be able to help provide
references, but we're not obligated to help instruct you when you are
incorrectly insistenting that Sage is doing it all wrong.
David


On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 5:55 PM William Stein  wrote:

> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/blob/develop/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
>
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 2:39 PM aw  wrote:
> >
> > Guys, this is serious. Any dev who starts reading this, give it a hard
> look, ok?
> >
> > Below I give some examples where Sage give the wrong answer, with no
> error message or any indication that the answer is not correct.
> >
> > Probably the single most important rule in software is, never ever give
> users the wrong answer.
> >
> > Either give them the right answer, or give them no answer along with an
> error message explaining why the right answer can't be given.
> >
> > Why the heck is Sage not following this rule?
> >
> > After finding these examples, it's hard for me to trust any answer I get
> from Sage, unless I check it against other software, like Wolfram Alpha.
> >
> > One possible response to my examples below is, I am not using Sage
> functions in an approved way.
> >
> > But that's not a valid objection. A user should be able to send any
> argument to a function, and it's the responsibility of the programmer to
> make sure one of two things happen:
> >
> > (a) the user is given the right answer;
> > or (b) the user is given no answer and an error message.
> >
> > Sage is failing to do this.
> >
> > On to the examples.
> >
> > Example 1, straight from the sage RealField docs:
> >
> > RealField(120)(RR(13/10))
> > 1.3000444089209850062616
> >
> > RR has default 53 bits, so this is really:
> >
> > RealField(120)(RealField(53)(13/10))
> >
> > Here's the same thing with less precision to make it clear that this has
> nothing to do with Python's single or double precision floats:
> >
> > RealField(18)(RealField(12)(13/10)) (A)
> >
> > What should happen here is this:
> > RealField(12) should eval 13/10 as 1.30
> > RealField(12) should pass to RealField(18) only those digits, 1.30
> > RealField(18) should then zero-pad that to 18 bits, yielding 1.3000
> >
> > Here's what sage does:
> >
> > RealField(18)(RealField(12)(13/10))
> > 1.2998
> >
> > Let's check the types of all args:
> >
> > type(13/10)
> > sage.rings.rational.Rational
> >
> > type(18)# type(12) is the same
> > sage.rings.integer.Integer
> >
> > All args to RealField in (A) are Sage types.
> > Hence everything in the calculation (A) is under the complete control of
> Sage.
> > Hence Sage could easily do the right thing here.
> >
> > But it doesn't.
> >
> > You might say, this is an artificial example, passing the output of one
> RealField to another in a non-sanctioned way.
> > Ok then, let's just pass arguments to one RealField.
> > Can we get it to give wrong answers?
> >
> > Yes, very easily, by passing it an arithmetic expression.
> >
> > Sending in arithmetic expressions should be totally fine, because the
> RealField docs say: "This is a binding for the MPFR arbitrary-precision
> floating point library."
> >
> > The purpose of MPFR is to be able to do basic arithmetic in arbitrary
> precision.
> > Basic arithmetic means any expression using the following ops (and maybe
> some others): +, -, *, /, ^
> >
> > So let's pass an arithmetic expression to RealField.
> > The whole point of MPFR is to always give the right answer for the value
> of such an expression, for any expression and any requested precision.
> > The docs say RealField is a binding for MPFR.
> > So 

Re: [sage-devel] bug in realfield when passing python integers

[David Roe]

I don't think this is a bug that Sage can fix.  When you execute
RR(8059/9042) in Python, it first evaluates 8059/9042 which produces a
float, then passes that to RR.  There's no way for RR to know that you
initially input a ratio of ints.
David

On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 4:11 PM aw  wrote:

> when passing python ints to realfield, they don't get cast to sage integers
> this can cause wrong answers
>
> example:
>
> RR=RealField(100)
>
> set_random_seed(3)
> n1=randint(1000,)#n1=8059
> n2=randint(1000,)#n2=9042
> print(n1,'/',n2,'=',sep='')
> print(RR(n1/n2))#passing as 8059,9042 as python ints
>
> print()
>
> print(8059,'/',9042,'=',sep='')
> print(RR(8059/9042))  #passing 8059,9042 as sage ints
>
>
> output:
>
> 8059/9042=
> 0.89128511391285114573435066632
>
> 8059/9042=
> 0.89128511391285113912851139128
>
> the first one is wrong, the second one is right
>
> this bug is trivial to fix
> when ints are passed to realfield, they should be automatically cast to
> sage ints
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/8bacb253-6d1c-4508-8b79-82ce7aea0caen%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_kH%2BHj599PMfS3WsO995Q_RE_ZEfV4zrT58JZb69foKBA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: XCode Update creates "C compiler cannot create executables"

[David Roe]

I just ran into this error after upgrading to MacOS 13.3.  I first started
seeing issues with stdio.h being missing, so I tried reinstalling Xcode
command line tools.  I was then missing complex.h, so I tried reinstalling
all of Xcode.  Then configure gave me the error described in this thread;
looking at config.log I found that I needed to run
sudo xcodebuild -license
and agree to the license terms.  Our configure script suppresses this
suggestion (though it does suggest looking at config.log, where it appears).

Unfortunately, this didn't fix the original problem with stdio.h being
missing.  The error
clang: warning: no such sysroot directory:
'/Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/SDKs/MacOSX10.15.sdk'
[-Wmissing-sysroot]
In file included from primecountpy/primecount.cpp:33:
In file included from /usr/local/opt/python@3.9
/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.9/include/python3.9/Python.h:25:
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/../include/c++/v1/stdio.h:107:15:
fatal error: 'stdio.h' file not found
#include_next 
  ^
had a link to a specific 10.15 sdk.

It turns out that after the upgrade the sdk from the old version of MacOSX
was gone.  Symlinking using
sudo ln -s /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/SDKs/MacOSX.sdk
/Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/SDKs/MacOSX10.15.sdk
seems to have fixed the problem (after remembering to
source .homebrew-build-env).

Hoping that this might be helpful for people building Sage after upgrading
MacOS!
David

On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 12:41 PM John H Palmieri 
wrote:

> Have you tried reinstalling the command-line tools?
>
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 6:44:54 AM UTC-7 gcha...@vols.utk.edu wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> I recently updated my computer and XCode, which seems to have broken my
>> ability to compile sage. I have tried fully uninstalling and reinstalling,
>> making sure to follow all the MacOS pre-installation recommendations.
>> However, I keep getting the "C compiler cannot create executables" error
>> when I try to run ./configure. Any ideas? Config log attached.
>> Thanks in advance!
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/ee864457-505a-4bb5-83c9-5268a2d832fbn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_k8q1%3DVpApcuYugyCGRRMxi1uY8cKy7%3D-0OzcjKgqQB%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Adding labels to pull requests?

[David Roe]

Hi Enrique,
I've added you to the Triage team, so now you can manage labels.
David

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 1:33 PM enriqu...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Actually I have the same problem, I cannot see how to apply labels to PR I
> created. Maybe I can't. Thanks, Enrique.
>
> El jueves, 2 de marzo de 2023 a las 21:37:56 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik
> escribió:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 6:20 PM brettpim  wrote:
>> >
>> > Aaron Dwyer and I have just finished an initial implementation of
>> covering arrays for sagemath and posted it as a PR ready for review. The
>> Provisional workflow on GitHub suggest attaching labels to the PR which we
>> cannot figure out how to do.
>> >
>> > We think labels would help us get the most appropriate reviewers for
>> the PR
>>
>> you're invited to the sagemath org :-)
>>
>> Cheers
>> Dima
>>
>> >
>> > thanks
>> > brett
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "sage-devel" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/64b4a44b-a957-41d9-8e09-e1a8936320adn%40googlegroups.com.
>>
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/0d44d0b2-1e30-4f9b-a4bf-80e6a775aefbn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3DHQ%3DDERJaR4SwX3wtyOJ0MYrsM-12bV9L3UfFs3%2BCB1g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Adding labels to github issues

[David Roe]

Hi Brett,
Yes, you do need to be part of the Triage team to add labels (this is a
function of how permissions on github work).  There's currently a PR on the
trac-to-github repository
<https://github.com/sagemath/trac-to-github/pull/187> aiming to add a bot
to our github workflow in an attempt to improve the situation.  If you have
ideas, you're welcome to contribute to the discussion there.

I looked for the PR you're referring to in the list of Sage PRs
<https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pulls> and wasn't sure what you were
referring to.  If you can send a link I (or someone else) can add the Needs
Review tag manually (if it hasn't yet been done).
David

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 6:23 PM brettpim  wrote:

> David,
>
> Do we have to be a member of the triage team to add labels to a PR we
> create?  Aaron Dwyer and I have just finished an initial implementation of
> covering arrays for sagemath and posted it as a PR ready for review.  The 
> Provisional
> workflow on GitHub
> <https://github.com/sagemath/trac-to-github/blob/master/docs/Migration-Trac-to-Github.md>
> suggest attaching labels to the PR which we cannot figure out how to do.
>
> regards
> brett stevens
>
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 7:51:40 AM UTC-5 David Roe wrote:
>
>> Yesterday I manually added a bunch of people that I recognized to the
>> sagemath organization triage team
>> <https://github.com/orgs/sagemath/teams/triage> on github, which gives
>> people the ability to edit labels.  I don't intend to exclude any active
>> Sage developers, so if you want to be able to change labels and didn't get
>> added, please let me know and I'll add you!
>> David
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/29978d83-02f0-4657-85c3-329f1b201716n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/29978d83-02f0-4657-85c3-329f1b201716n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_m7-XPntTwuFaJ%3DQSeUuy%2BmYGt9wkQnggt9LvQJrTda0g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Procedure to be a member of sage github organization

[David Roe]

As a first proposal: once you have a PR accepted then you're added to the
sagemath organization.  I'm not sure exactly what the cutoff should be for
being added to triage (which gives the capability of changing labels,
closing and assigning issues and PRs, requesting PR reviews, applying
milestones and marking as duplicate.  I'm fine with giving these
permissions to people after their first PR is merged, but some might argue
for more of a history with contributors.

Julian and I had talked about writing a bot to handle these permissions,
but haven't gotten around to it yet.
David

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 5:33 AM Kwankyu Lee  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We are getting PRs from non-member contributors.
>
> What is the procedure or the condition to be invited for membership?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/9eae5420-6b43-440e-b36d-d30c3b23421bn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nn170-Gn6TMBcX8PVccfP4aMJNMNcL1HVogjcvL0Y0ag%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Confused about power series ring identity

[David Roe]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 6:04 AM Nils Bruin  wrote:

> From "PowerSeriesRing" docstring:
>
>There is a unique power series ring over each base ring with given
>variable name. Two power series over the same base ring with
>different variable names are not equal or isomorphic.
>
> However (and I think it should be like that):
>
> sage: P1.=PowerSeriesRing(QQ,default_prec=30)
> sage: P2.=PowerSeriesRing(QQ,default_prec=20)
> sage: P1 == P2
> False
>
> So .. I think a mistake in the documentation?
>

I agree, this is a mistake in the documentation.


> This bit is a little more questionable:
>
> sage: (P1.0+P2.0).parent() == P1
> True
> sage: (P1.0+P2.0).parent() == P2
> False
> sage: (P2.0+P1.0).parent() == P2
> True
>
> I'm not quite sure if P1 or P2 should be preferred, but I think preferring
> just the left parent might not be desirable.
>

Since elements of power series rings track their own precision, I would
suggest choosing the parent with higher precision.  This is what is done
for p-adic capped relative and capped absolute rings:

sage: R1 = Qp(5, 30)
sage: R2 = Qp(5, 20)
sage: (R1(1) + R2(1)).parent() is R1
True
sage: (R2(1) + R1(1)).parent() is R1
True

David


> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/a439bebf-377a-4336-b3a3-5a1bc467f1c9n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mLAfZp%2BaSDDAMcMvCqBPTbfX_WY31%3DnfjKs-mfCurVyg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: reviewer role on github

[David Roe]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:50 AM Kwankyu Lee  wrote:

> On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 7:33:51 PM UTC+9 Martin R wrote:
> In which repository?
>
> Here: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues
>
> Does this mean that researchers cannot become reviewers immediately
> anymore?
>
> You first become a member of sage organization, and then be promoted to
> Triage team (of reviewers).
>

I think you can review tickets without being on the Triage team (that's
only required for changing labels).
David

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/a42527ef-61bd-499a-a2dd-2c69cd17f1a7n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mpv%2BOaCKOn%2B%3DO-W1rfM3AjRu-qFWr3bSh9%3DNmS%2BgUoPw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: reviewer role on github

[David Roe]

Permission-wise, I think the only required permissions to review are Read
permissions, so I don't think it should be technically restricted.
David

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:33 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel <
sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> In which repository?
>
> Does this mean that researchers cannot become reviewers immediately
> anymore?
>
> I am very puzzled.
>
> Martin
> On Friday, 10 February 2023 at 11:18:18 UTC+1 Kwankyu Lee wrote:
>
>> I suggest this procedure:
>>
>> You open an issue: "promote me to a reviewer". Then if you get enough
>> hearts from other reviewers,  an admin promotes you.
>>
>> On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 7:07:04 PM UTC+9 Martin R wrote:
>> I was unable to find out how I declare myself as reviewer in the new
>> workflow.
>>
>> This question applies to
>>
>> * pull requests without issue (I'm not sure yet how they work: given a
>> number like #35053, how can I see issue and pull request associated to it?
>>
>> * issues without pull requests.
>>
>> Martin
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/2b2b0090-6d44-4e73-acc8-338ce589bbdfn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_kOWC-on3Yt1myV4zp%2BwCmYxrxZ0Lt52m9eA5aC9dR8Kg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] reviewer role on github

[David Roe]

I think the interface only allows reviewers for PRs, and not for issues
(though you could always make a comment on an issue declaring your
intention to review any resulting PR).

For PRs, you have a couple options:
1. At the top right of the PR, there's a "Reviewers" box, with a gear icon
next to it.  If you click on the gear, it will show you a bunch of people,
with yourself as first.  You can assign yourself as a reviewer (and
possibly request other people as reviewers).  Please let me know if you
don't see the gear or the list of people, since this may depend on your
role in the repository.
2. If you click on the "Files changed" tab, you can add comments on lines
and at the top right there should be a green button "Review Changes".
David

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:07 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel <
sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I was unable to find out how I declare myself as reviewer in the new
> workflow.
>
> This question applies to
>
> * pull requests without issue (I'm not sure yet how they work: given a
> number like #35053, how can I see issue and pull request associated to it?
>
> * issues without pull requests.
>
> Martin
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/0d2dab52-0e74-4446-9256-f42eaa5240b0n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mr2sFL9LEfL9pH56S8OvpqA9%2Bag%3DFeMpGuNsEjsBhxKw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: New wiki at sagemath/sage hosted by GitHub

[David Roe]

Has any content from https://wiki.sagemath.org/ been moved to the github
wiki, or is that planned?
David

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 2:08 AM Kwankyu Lee  wrote:

> The url is
>
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/b41e4d56-e77f-4ebe-b469-4d1d3355e23bn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nepoOyd%2BFettvUR_-D7z%3Dkz-Z9LF-a0rDGeEAcOPNPJw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] fetch from draft PR not working

[David Roe]

Thanks!  I've just updated the instructions that you linked to.
David

On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 8:56 PM brettpim  wrote:

> So is this a typo on the
> <https://github.com/sagemath/trac-to-github/blob/master/docs/Migration-Trac-to-Github.md#issue-with-pr>Provisional
> workflow on GitHub
> <https://github.com/sagemath/trac-to-github/blob/master/docs/Migration-Trac-to-Github.md#issue-with-pr>
> instructions?
>
> thanks
> brett
>
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 2:54:07 PM UTC-5 David Roe wrote:
>
>> You probably want
>> ```git fetch upstream pull/35008/head:covering_array```
>> Your fork of Sage (origin) doesn't include all of the PRs from the
>> upstream repository.
>> David
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 8:40 PM brettpim  wrote:
>>
>>> I have followed the Provisional workflow on GitHub
>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/trac-to-github/blob/master/docs/Migration-Trac-to-Github.md#issue-with-pr>
>>> and I think I have my remotes set up correctly.
>>> ```git remote -v``` gives
>>> > origing...@github.com:brettpim/sage.git (fetch)
>>> > origing...@github.com:brettpim/sage.git (push)
>>> > tracg...@trac.sagemath.org:sage.git (fetch)
>>> > tracg...@trac.sagemath.org:sage.git (push)
>>> > upstreamg...@github.com:sagemath/sage.git (fetch)
>>> > upstreamg...@github.com:sagemath/sage.git (push)
>>>
>>> Now I would like to work on a draft pull request #35008
>>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/35008> so following the workflow
>>> instructions I run
>>> ```git fetch origin pull/35008/head:covering_array```  which yields
>>> > fatal: couldn't find remote ref pull/#35008/head
>>>
>>> What am I doing wrong?
>>> thanks
>>> brett
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "sage-devel" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/0ebe9b2e-1396-428e-b53b-da984459c3aan%40googlegroups.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/0ebe9b2e-1396-428e-b53b-da984459c3aan%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/834d6fc3-0bec-47c7-9f60-6c7e66ecd131n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/834d6fc3-0bec-47c7-9f60-6c7e66ecd131n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3DgsVri6%2BkTvOOcN-9NGXJXxN1_EvNJWtcWh9NfL01%2BYw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] fetch from draft PR not working

[David Roe]

You probably want
```git fetch upstream pull/35008/head:covering_array```
Your fork of Sage (origin) doesn't include all of the PRs from the upstream
repository.
David

On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 8:40 PM brettpim  wrote:

> I have followed the Provisional workflow on GitHub
> 
> and I think I have my remotes set up correctly.
> ```git remote -v``` gives
> > origing...@github.com:brettpim/sage.git (fetch)
> > origing...@github.com:brettpim/sage.git (push)
> > tracg...@trac.sagemath.org:sage.git (fetch)
> > tracg...@trac.sagemath.org:sage.git (push)
> > upstreamg...@github.com:sagemath/sage.git (fetch)
> > upstreamg...@github.com:sagemath/sage.git (push)
>
> Now I would like to work on a draft pull request #35008
>  so following the workflow
> instructions I run
> ```git fetch origin pull/35008/head:covering_array```  which yields
> > fatal: couldn't find remote ref pull/#35008/head
>
> What am I doing wrong?
> thanks
> brett
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/0ebe9b2e-1396-428e-b53b-da984459c3aan%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nT9uAsFOsgCsnLbH80%3DRRadYo%3DbhuxaJWyzw-0Mj1GTQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Merging fix for github CI

[David Roe]

r to me what I should be doing to
>>>
>>> 1.) try the PR
>>> 2.) enable the linting, building and doc checks.
>>>
>>> Please excuse me :-(
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, 8 February 2023 at 11:37:57 UTC+1 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 10:23 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Since the failures are
>>>> >
>>>> > sage -t --random-seed=130442615951932153031063473470828108756
>>>> sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_curve_isogeny.py # 1 doctest failed
>>>> > sage -t --random-seed=130442615951932153031063473470828108756
>>>> sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_number_field.py # 2 doctests failed
>>>> >
>>>> > I assume that the PR is based on an old branch, but the PR page does
>>>> not contain "update branch".. It does contain "Merging is blocked", but I
>>>> don't really understand what this means.
>>>>
>>>> I just did
>>>> git fetch origin pull/34974/head
>>>> (with origin being the main new GitHub repo for sage)
>>>> to see the git log, and magically on
>>>> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/34974
>>>> there is now
>>>>
>>>> This branch is out-of-date with the base branch
>>>> Merge the latest changes from develop into this branch.
>>>>
>>>> and "Update branch" button just above "Merge is blocked"
>>>> (which is just a reflection of the fact that develop branch is
>>>> protected, you can't push/merge there (I can, as Admin, though))
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps that was due to the base branch being so old, that no branch
>>>> info on that was computed by GitHub ahead of my fetch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Martin
>>>> > On Wednesday, 8 February 2023 at 10:42:24 UTC+1 dim...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023, 08:41 'Martin R' via sage-devel, <
>>>> sage-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I cannot see any "update branch" button on
>>>> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/34974
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Where should I look for it?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> This button is somewhere near the ticket status at the bottom - if
>>>> your base is indeed outdated.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> But check the commits on the branch.
>>>> >> I went on the merging spree last night, to gauge the performance of
>>>> the CI a bit.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Martin
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Wednesday, 8 February 2023 at 00:32:49 UTC+1 dim...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 10:42 PM David Roe 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > Thanks Dima!
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > There is now an "Update branch" button at the bottom of each PR,
>>>> which you can press if you're the originator of the PR and it will merge in
>>>> develop
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> (there is an option to rebase rather than to merge on this button
>>>> -
>>>> >>>> although automatic rebase is less guaranteed)
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I was impatient and I pressed this for a number of PRs myself :-)
>>>> >>>> I see now CI passing for quite a number, looks quite good.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Dima
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> > David
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 8:18 PM Dima Pasechnik 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>> >>
>>>> >>>> >> done
>>>> >>>> >>
>>>> >>>> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 6:54 PM John Cremona <
>>>> john.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>

[sage-devel] Adding labels to github issues

[David Roe]

Yesterday I manually added a bunch of people that I recognized to the
sagemath organization triage team
 on github, which gives
people the ability to edit labels.  I don't intend to exclude any active
Sage developers, so if you want to be able to change labels and didn't get
added, please let me know and I'll add you!
David

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nT67i4brwvihaHY1j%2B%3DK930LzkEUTm2z56MzSW72oRrQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Merging fix for github CI

[David Roe]

Thanks Dima!

There is now an "Update branch" button at the bottom of each PR, which you
can press if you're the originator of the PR and it will merge in develop.
David

On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 8:18 PM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:

> done
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 6:54 PM John Cremona 
> wrote:
> >
> > Strong yes from me.
> >
> > #34987 concerns a 3-line doctest where only the first has a #long time
> tag thought the other lines depend on the first having been run, so causes
> a failure when tested without --long.  The fix adds two # long time tags
> > #34964 trims some whitespace and changes "" to r""" in a few necessary
> places.
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 18:18, David Roe  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >> Currently, almost all of the PRs on github aren't passing CI, and thus
> have red Xs.  The problem can be resolved by merging #34964 and #34987.
> Several of us at Sage Days 117 propose to merge these two PRs into the
> develop branch on Github tonight, to help improve the reviewing process for
> everyone here, as well as for people who are getting used to the new Github
> workflow.  We don't anticipate this becoming a regular occurrence (it's
> mainly a consequence of the slightly different testing process on trac and
> github).
> >>
> >> If we hear no objections, we'll proceed in an hour and a half (8:45pm
> CET, 2:45pm EST, 11:45am PST).
> >> David
> >>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mnuBi-qd%3Da0%3DqAGt8Xp6SohQzWdtw%2B04t82MPq68ntPw%40mail.gmail.com
> .
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAD0p0K5c%2BOYxf8EAJ5bAA6cJUuzoMtpqwDCOHuKcEd1zjNfMrA%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq3hp_TRB9ALs__jutcP_us3TA%3DGUxthMS%3DNYGN1KzNkPw%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_n392HmzN_7rnfeU_3%3DZLgC444LmGc7vQKAuseJq9POmg%40mail.gmail.com.

[sage-devel] Merging fix for github CI

[David Roe]

Hi all,
Currently, almost all of the PRs on github
 aren't passing CI, and thus have
red Xs.  The problem can be resolved by merging #34964
 and #34987
.  Several of us at Sage Days
117 propose to merge these two PRs into the develop branch on Github
tonight, to help improve the reviewing process for everyone here, as well
as for people who are getting used to the new Github workflow.  We don't
anticipate this becoming a regular occurrence (it's mainly a consequence of
the slightly different testing process on trac and github).

If we hear no objections, we'll proceed in an hour and a half (8:45pm CET,
2:45pm EST, 11:45am PST).
David

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mnuBi-qd%3Da0%3DqAGt8Xp6SohQzWdtw%2B04t82MPq68ntPw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Creating a github team

[David Roe]

In response to Eric's suggestion of having the whole team set as the
reviewer, my main concern is that having a diffuse responsibility will make
it more likely for tickets to slip through the cracks. If you want to
review a ticket and someone else is assigned by the bot, I think taking
over as reviewer would be totally acceptable.

Sending notifications
<https://github.com/marketplace/actions/issue-label-notifier> to the
corresponding team when a component label is added is probably another
thing that the bot could do (probably just by adding an @team comment to
the PR).

I think the standard in the open source world is to allow PRs from
outsiders, partly as a way to draw people in.  John, what's your motivation
for restricting to only members?
David

On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 5:39 PM John Cremona  wrote:

> Re David's #1:   Could we only allow PRs to be made by members?  (Or is
> that against the spirit of open source?)  Then, a new contributor would
> first ask to become a member, and then would be able to make a PR.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 16:29, Eric Gourgoulhon 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> Le mardi 7 février 2023 à 14:33:04 UTC+1, David Roe a écrit :
>>   4. When a component tag is added to a PR (or a new PR created with a
>> component set), if there is no reviewer already requested then the bot will
>> request review from someone on that component team (eventually we may
>> refine this process based on what lines are being modified in the PR).
>> Details on how a person is chosen are still to be worked out, but we think
>> it's helpful to have a single person responsible rather than a large group.
>>   5. If a reviewer declines or if a review is not given within a week
>> (this duration can be up for discussion), the bot will request review from
>> another member of that component team.
>>
>> I would rather favor a mode in which the bot sends a notification to the
>> whole team at each tagged PR, instead of picking members one per one, so
>> that any team member that is interested by the PR, feels competent and has
>> the time to do the review can do it.
>>
>> Eric.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "sage-devel" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/3de741ca-1c8f-461c-9df8-0eaf95ca8444n%40googlegroups.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/3de741ca-1c8f-461c-9df8-0eaf95ca8444n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAD0p0K5%3D1qjnk%3DJM4auH6rmD9ZH1srQQMavGcMwztgMGYHSv%3DA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAD0p0K5%3D1qjnk%3DJM4auH6rmD9ZH1srQQMavGcMwztgMGYHSv%3DA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nX_6uvSD9zizA142znd00%3DnxY6jN4X4SvdtVaA8X%2Bvqw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Stepping away for a bit

[David Roe]

Thank you so much for your work on this transition Matthias!
David

On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 9:34 PM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 8:17 PM Matthias Koeppe 
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Sage developers,
> > As the migration of the Trac tickets to GitHub issues was completed
> yesterday night, I am stepping away for a little while from working on the
> development infrastructure of the project.
>
>  you did wonders!
>
> > In the next weeks, the developer community should discuss, implement,
> and document the necessary refinements to the workflow sketched in our
> transition guide. Most pressing is the question of teams and their
> permissions. More tasks are listed in:
> >
> https://github.com/sagemath/trac-to-github/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22Right+after+the+migration%22
>
>
> >
> > Matthias
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/451f72e3-5bf8-4880-abfc-f5a775ca2c0cn%40googlegroups.com
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq3Sk79_An7qVb2Y8G%2B1vYa1WUWFfh%3DbgCPmxxcqekuFBw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3DM_Ft5MRx6jE_r5N2H1r2SCooBhnw4VBc-8%3Dn9cDnq%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Creating a github team

[David Roe]

On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 10:28 AM Eric Gourgoulhon 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks again for all the hard work for the github migration!
>
> I would like to create a team "Manifolds" of https://github.com/sagemath,
> with sufficient permissions so that I can add users to it. How shall I
> proceed? Are there any team creation request on the github interface or
> should some sagemath admin do it?
>

I think people in the Core group can create teams.


> Maybe a preliminary question: do we want to create github teams to
> organize Sage development by topics?
>

 I think this is a good idea: we can use it to help us organize code
reviews, and people can @mention a team if they're looking for advice on a
certain topic.  After talking to Julian Rüth some, here's a proposal for
how to carry this out (given that Github's code owners

functionality requires write permission to the repo, and that only repo
owners can add people to teams).

* Julian and I can work on creating a bot for managing component teams.
There will be a top level "Components" team, with a sub-team associated to
each of our existing components.
* The bot will be contained in a new repo in the sagemath organization, and
will run on a google cloud instance that Julian sets up (we could run it on
Github Actions, but that would use up one of our runners that we use for
linting and doctesting PRs).  Julian can give others access to the machine,
and if Julian disappears for some reason and we want to shut the bot down
years from now, an organization admin can just revoke the bot's permissions.
* It will operate by monitoring pull requests:
  1. If someone who is not a member of the Sage organization has a pull
request merged, it will invite them to the SageMath organization (with
whatever privileges we end up settling on for that status).  They'll accept
via normal means (whatever the email tells them to do).
  2. If someone who is not part of any component team has a pull request
merged (including the above case), it will reply with a description of the
component teams and an offer to join some; anyone can join a team by making
a comment addressed to the bot.  It will remember that an offer is made,
and not spam people on future PRs if they choose not to join a component
team.
  3. When an author's Nth pull request is merged (maybe N=5?) it will offer
to add them to the triage team, giving them the power to change labels.
  4. When a component tag is added to a PR (or a new PR created with a
component set), if there is no reviewer already requested then the bot will
request review from someone on that component team (eventually we may
refine this process based on what lines are being modified in the PR).
Details on how a person is chosen are still to be worked out, but we think
it's helpful to have a single person responsible rather than a large group.
  5. If a reviewer declines or if a review is not given within a week (this
duration can be up for discussion), the bot will request review from
another member of that component team.

Thoughts or suggestions?
David


> Eric.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/1120db7e-9536-4b06-8d43-b1d1a920de3dn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_m9ZKUt0_J13hGLeFpSDY1J-RSSGKM%3Dc65RrPEewv2L%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: URGENT: Re: [sage-devel] Jan 30 to Feb 4: Trac downtime, migration to GitHub

[David Roe]

I haven't been logged out, and am still able to edit my comments.
David

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 3:41 PM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:38 PM Kwankyu Lee  wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 5:15:24 AM UTC+9 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
> > that's cause I have to run "trac-admin" - and it breaks www access.
> >
> > I'll restore it after I am done.
> >
> > It's restored. Happily I cannot login to trac.
>
> Did you log out? Or you were basically kicked out?
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/926bbfc9-fa33-4e30-a14c-e53e950146d0n%40googlegroups.com
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq3PZo5%2BB0knaUV8742UmgC3N_EFXLVQz1KU2JVifS9aYg%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3Dz8nxUJAkk0tU%3D%3D%3DzhY3rsxgtTbpmFPtSKmkwZYt_YWw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: URGENT: Re: [sage-devel] Jan 30 to Feb 4: Trac downtime, migration to GitHub

[David Roe]

Unfortunately, I was still able to edit the comment.
David

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 12:49 PM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 4:12 PM David Roe  wrote:
> >
> > I am still able to edit comments (see
> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/11777#comment:5), but there doesn't seem
> to be a way to edit the ticket's overall status.
>
> David - I'm trying to see if I was able to remotely "kick you out" -
> assuming you didn't log out, can you still edit
> comments?
>
> >
> > I think this is probably alright, if you're struggling to figure out how
> to disable editing comments.
> > David
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:02 AM Dima Pasechnik 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Could someone with a "legacy" trac account quickly check whether they
> >> can modify tickets. (me and mkoeppe are still able, but that's the
> >> current setup)
> >>
> >> Thanks much
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 3:35 PM Dima Pasechnik 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 2:49 PM Eric Gourgoulhon <
> egourgoul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Le lundi 30 janvier 2023 à 15:07:36 UTC+1, dim...@gmail.com a
> écrit :
> >> > > OK, it should be read-only now (for pushing, ticket
> >> > > creating/modifying, other state-changing admin)
> >> > >
> >> > > Thank you Dima!
> >> > >
> >> > > Logins still work though, but they have no effect on anything, as
> far
> >> > > as I can see.
> >> > >
> >> > > Please let me know if for some reason you still can modify things!
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > It seems that, once logged in, one can still modify a ticket
> comment, see
> >> > > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30525#comment:106
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > hmm. Could you try now?
> >> > (I've rebooted the server, it might have helped...)
> >> >
> >> > (sorry, I only tested with gh-*- accounts, they did look  readonly.)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > Eric.
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> >> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> > > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/a327a441-4153-4173-b6b7-abc219ec7932n%40googlegroups.com
> .
> >>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq1%3DLjuVST_FEESLVm%3DCpJ3mb9TJ8_ffwALcO-heCiBhGg%40mail.gmail.com
> .
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_n-EH0%3Dd%2BZQA7BzTOAfSy1LN_sGN7NzCm8hsmRAqbGHKA%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nyi2hX-uTamNsrNDzgV%2BEACVLGVj8kB2JnXAze%3DwhntQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: URGENT: Re: [sage-devel] Jan 30 to Feb 4: Trac downtime, migration to GitHub

[David Roe]

I am still able to edit comments (see
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/11777#comment:5), but there doesn't seem
to be a way to edit the ticket's overall status.

I think this is probably alright, if you're struggling to figure out how to
disable editing comments.
David

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:02 AM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:

> Could someone with a "legacy" trac account quickly check whether they
> can modify tickets. (me and mkoeppe are still able, but that's the
> current setup)
>
> Thanks much
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 3:35 PM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 2:49 PM Eric Gourgoulhon 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Le lundi 30 janvier 2023 à 15:07:36 UTC+1, dim...@gmail.com a écrit :
> > > OK, it should be read-only now (for pushing, ticket
> > > creating/modifying, other state-changing admin)
> > >
> > > Thank you Dima!
> > >
> > > Logins still work though, but they have no effect on anything, as far
> > > as I can see.
> > >
> > > Please let me know if for some reason you still can modify things!
> > >
> > >
> > > It seems that, once logged in, one can still modify a ticket comment,
> see
> > > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30525#comment:106
> > >
> >
> > hmm. Could you try now?
> > (I've rebooted the server, it might have helped...)
> >
> > (sorry, I only tested with gh-*- accounts, they did look  readonly.)
> >
> >
> > > Eric.
> > >
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/a327a441-4153-4173-b6b7-abc219ec7932n%40googlegroups.com
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq1%3DLjuVST_FEESLVm%3DCpJ3mb9TJ8_ffwALcO-heCiBhGg%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_n-EH0%3Dd%2BZQA7BzTOAfSy1LN_sGN7NzCm8hsmRAqbGHKA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] sage is slowding down PARI/GP by factor x2 (roughly)

[David Roe]

It could be related to #31572 ,
which notes a dramatic speed regression based on pari being compiled with
pthread.
David

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 3:30 PM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:

> I vaguely recall something about the way gp is built, without linking
> libpari dynamically, and something about gp getting slower if built with
> threads.
>
> So, probably, more info is needed on how exactly your comparisons are
> done, in regard of using, or not, threads, and dynamic linking.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022, 20:23 Vincent Delecroix, <20100.delecr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Some strange phenomenon makes execution of PARI/GP up to twice slower
>> when ran inside a Python process compared to its execution in GP.
>> Though this is not systematic, in a fresh python environment timing
>> are comparable with GP.
>>
>> The slowdown has been first observed in the context of pari_jupyter
>> [1] and then with cypari2 when sage.all is loaded [2]. There is a
>> short code snippet in the description of [2] that you can try on your
>> own sage version (must be ran with "sage -python" and not "sage").
>>
>> Any idea on what could be the source of the slowdown or some profiling
>> advices would be very welcome.
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/sagemath/pari-jupyter/issues/27
>> [2] https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34850
>>
>> Best
>> Vincent
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "sage-devel" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAGEwAAm_%2BVfg%3D6po8-7B4eb7kW2UT%3DHjvXaR7yfUOxL930HhQQ%40mail.gmail.com
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq2yJEvXbRa8znksXtDm%2B-hkXN_EVpwN09X4tb8EY-0-kA%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mqWOpnHAe4-cYTxg63y5ri4vFuJxZRasMUzsEMYzTNAQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] missing coercion?

[David Roe]

It's the difference between conversion and coercion.

P = PolynomialRing(GF(2), "z", sparse=True); Q = PolynomialRing(ZZ, "z",
sparse=False)
sage: P.convert_map_from(Q)
Conversion map:
  From: Univariate Polynomial Ring in z over Integer Ring
  To:   Sparse Univariate Polynomial Ring in z over Finite Field of size 2
sage: P.convert_map_from(Q)(Q.gen())
z

David

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 5:15 PM 'Martin R' via sage-devel <
sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Sorry, I don't understand your last sentence.  We have
>
> sage: P = PolynomialRing(GF(2), "z", sparse=True); Q = PolynomialRing(ZZ,
> "z", sparse=False)
> sage: P.has_coerce_map_from(Q)
> False
>
> How does this fit with
>
> "And of course you can convert even when Q is not sparse."?
>
> Martin
>
> On Wednesday, 12 October 2022 at 23:04:38 UTC+2 David Roe wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's expected.
>>
>> sage: P = PolynomialRing(GF(2), "z", sparse=True); Q = PolynomialRing(ZZ,
>> "z", sparse=True)
>> sage: P.has_coerce_map_from(Q)
>> True
>>
>> And of course you can convert even when Q is not sparse.
>> David
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 4:58 PM 'Martin R' via sage-devel <
>> sage-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have no idea whether the following is to be expected:
>>>
>>> sage: P = PolynomialRing(GF(2), "z", sparse=False); Q =
>>> PolynomialRing(ZZ, "z")
>>> sage: P.has_coerce_map_from(Q)
>>> True
>>>
>>> sage: P = PolynomialRing(GF(2), "z", sparse=True); Q =
>>> PolynomialRing(ZZ, "z")
>>> sage: P.has_coerce_map_from(Q)
>>> False
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "sage-devel" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/c585103b-9dfa-4e25-b36b-20f8fb937435n%40googlegroups.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/c585103b-9dfa-4e25-b36b-20f8fb937435n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/5d443b30-3171-4a6c-bfdc-c61100680cc9n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/5d443b30-3171-4a6c-bfdc-c61100680cc9n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_m2adJrXP3%3Dhs%3D9AKCFcinFgGiOg_BHJ3%2BAOVVHPguERg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] missing coercion?

[David Roe]

Yes, that's expected.

sage: P = PolynomialRing(GF(2), "z", sparse=True); Q = PolynomialRing(ZZ,
"z", sparse=True)
sage: P.has_coerce_map_from(Q)
True

And of course you can convert even when Q is not sparse.
David

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 4:58 PM 'Martin R' via sage-devel <
sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I have no idea whether the following is to be expected:
>
> sage: P = PolynomialRing(GF(2), "z", sparse=False); Q =
> PolynomialRing(ZZ, "z")
> sage: P.has_coerce_map_from(Q)
> True
>
> sage: P = PolynomialRing(GF(2), "z", sparse=True); Q = PolynomialRing(ZZ,
> "z")
> sage: P.has_coerce_map_from(Q)
> False
>
> Martin
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/c585103b-9dfa-4e25-b36b-20f8fb937435n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3DJT8Fiaw-U%2BVch2nzb4-OQYa4LgUygOPNnXvEJtY_U%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[David Roe]

I will also note that the final vote in favor of moving to github was 46 to
8 in favor.  Another few weeks of discussion, on top of the substantial
amount of time spent over the last few months (in fact, over the last
decade), is unlikely to have changed the outcome.
David

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 12:51 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 3:11:12 AM UTC-7 Thierry
> (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
>
>> several developers asked for delays [...]
>> [1,2,3,4,5,6].
>
>
> This is a misrepresentation of most of the 6 cited messages. I'll just
> point out one specifically:
>
>
>>
>> [3] Vincent : "For me the discussion in this thread is very premature"
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/ZTXx_speBwAJ
>
>
> This message from Vincent dates Sep 10, which *prompted* our efforts to
> write the detailed
> transition guide, work out many details etc. over the following week.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/6ffb834f-3300-43c6-be46-db35ec4000a6n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nBRxsymmF4t8aL2ebpyNjU7WfS7F3%3DBTCTjco%2B815rQA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: move Sage development to Github

[David Roe]

Thanks to everyone for voting!  The final results are 46 in favor of moving
to Github and 8 against.

There is still a lot of work to be done to carry out the transition, and
we'll be coordinating on this wiki page
 and this
trac ticket , as well as various
threads on Sage devel.  We will make an announcement prior to running the
porting scripts.

I know that not everyone is happy with this decision, but I encourage those
who preferred trac to help us figure out how to make both the transition
and the Github-based workflow better.  Similarly, for those advocating for
regular backups of issues, there is a trac ticket
 to help coordinate work.
David

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 11:33 AM sal...@gmail.com  wrote:

> +1 for github
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/129385de-65c2-40f4-9496-47b7bfe0d248n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mAxWdrmNp%2B21999hN-XqWEBmPqZRKXgJrVn0sya3mViw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: move Sage development to Github

[David Roe]

Just a reminder that voting ends tomorrow (noon EDT, 16:00 UTC), so if
you've been putting off voting you should do so now.
David

On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 7:39 AM Alex J Best  wrote:

> +1 for github
>
> On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 7:23:36 PM UTC+2 David Roe wrote:
>
>> Dear Sage developers,
>> Following extensive discussion, both recently
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/Pg-rmYAUBwAJ> 
>> (prompted
>> by issues upgrading the trac server) and over
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/yBv5MCG9SJY/m/gYOYnRhzDAAJ> the
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/Xw6CNq1lyiI/m/_XcxeD_kDQAJ>
>> last
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/z33SLveYiIo/m/CxNxsXnBeNAJ>
>> decade
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/DmjL8hHJYI8/m/NG9_xmsPbFYJ>,
>> we are calling a vote on switching Sage development from Trac
>> <https://trac.sagemath.org/> to Github <https://www.github.com/>.  We've
>> created a summary of the pros and cons of each system
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/Github-vs-Gitlab-vs-trac>, a 
>> description
>> of the development model to be used on github
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/migration-from-trac-to-Git**b>,
>> and a trac ticket <https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30363> for
>> coordinating work on the transition.  More work will need to be done to
>> carry out the actual transition once voting is complete.
>>
>> The voting will last until noon Eastern time (16:00 UTC) on Wednesday,
>> October 5.  Please use this thread only for sending votes, to make it
>> easier to count them afterward; there is a parallel thread where you can
>> make arguments in favor of either system.
>>
>> Finally, I will close with a plea to be involved in this vote and
>> discussion even if you are not a core Sage developer.  By definition, core
>> Sage developers have become comfortable with trac, and I think that one of
>> the major arguments in favor of github is that it will help bring in new
>> contributors who are not familiar with Sage's development workfow
>> <https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/index.html>.  Anyone who has
>> ever contributed to the Sage code base or who maintains a Sage user package
>> is welcome to vote.
>> David
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/c2402862-5a03-41c7-8e0b-06ecdf7a19f9n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/c2402862-5a03-41c7-8e0b-06ecdf7a19f9n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3DtQuL%3DYUP-a2tbKGZTPk1u7VFgWNSezdytRSsyizA8NQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: move Sage development to Github

[David Roe]

Just vote by email on this thread; I will tally them on Wednesday.

On Sat, Oct 1, 2022, 8:57 PM erentar2002  wrote:

> Do i vote by email or is there a voting page
> On 9/23/22 08:37, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
>
> +1 for Github
>
> Also wishing for contingency plan for re-migrating to self-hosted Gitlab.
>
> Le mercredi 21 septembre 2022 à 19:23:36 UTC+2, David Roe a écrit :
>
>> Dear Sage developers,
>> Following extensive discussion, both recently
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/Pg-rmYAUBwAJ> 
>> (prompted
>> by issues upgrading the trac server) and over
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/yBv5MCG9SJY/m/gYOYnRhzDAAJ> the
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/Xw6CNq1lyiI/m/_XcxeD_kDQAJ>
>> last
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/z33SLveYiIo/m/CxNxsXnBeNAJ>
>> decade
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/DmjL8hHJYI8/m/NG9_xmsPbFYJ>,
>> we are calling a vote on switching Sage development from Trac
>> <https://trac.sagemath.org/> to Github <https://www.github.com/>.  We've
>> created a summary of the pros and cons of each system
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/Github-vs-Gitlab-vs-trac>, a 
>> description
>> of the development model to be used on github
>> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/migration-from-trac-to-Git**b>,
>> and a trac ticket <https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30363> for
>> coordinating work on the transition.  More work will need to be done to
>> carry out the actual transition once voting is complete.
>>
>> The voting will last until noon Eastern time (16:00 UTC) on Wednesday,
>> October 5.  Please use this thread only for sending votes, to make it
>> easier to count them afterward; there is a parallel thread where you can
>> make arguments in favor of either system.
>>
>> Finally, I will close with a plea to be involved in this vote and
>> discussion even if you are not a core Sage developer.  By definition, core
>> Sage developers have become comfortable with trac, and I think that one of
>> the major arguments in favor of github is that it will help bring in new
>> contributors who are not familiar with Sage's development workfow
>> <https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/index.html>.  Anyone who has
>> ever contributed to the Sage code base or who maintains a Sage user package
>> is welcome to vote.
>> David
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/2543b60f-4ef8-4e44-8a86-3847f7e7b8dbn%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/2543b60f-4ef8-4e44-8a86-3847f7e7b8dbn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/51118007-9932-e69f-5eb2-0e6aeb788145%40gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/51118007-9932-e69f-5eb2-0e6aeb788145%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3D8V9OiggmdPZXJQ1WOw16O9nkn63KVGpWVRDyP28cj6A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: specification of __bool__

[David Roe]

Nils put it well; please don't change __bool__ for p-adic and power
series.  It should be compatible with equality testing.
David

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 11:44 AM Nils Bruin  wrote:

> It seems attractive that for numerical types, bool(a) gives that same
> result as "not(a==0)", which would hopefully be the same as "a!=0".
>
> It is definitely the case that O(t^5) == 0 is a lot more useful for
> computations. For instance, with that in place, Gaussian elimination will
> actually sort-of work on a matrix of power series with plenty of precision
> (it will work quite badly if you don't implement an appropriate pivoting
> strategy, though). If O(t^5) != 0 , basically nothing works and you end up
> with a numerical type that is virtually useless, except for the things
> purpose-implemented for it. So for that reason, equal-to-zero testing
> pretty much has to assume that enough precision is available to distinguish
> elements that you'll be encountering in your particular computation. You'll
> only be proving that things are not equal that way: you'll just get
> evidence things may be equal, unless you establish lower bounds on distance
> between elements that are not equal.
>
> Your examples for interval arithmetic have their roots more in floating
> point, where equality testing is more generally accepted to be useless, but
> I would say that has a different pedigree than p-adic and power series,
> non-archimedean metrics,
>
> where a question about a power series  + O(t^5) is much more clearly a
> question about an element of k[t]/(t^5), where equality has a very
> well-defined meaning.
>
> Whether  "a != 0" should be basically the same as "bool(a)" ... python
> tradition says it should. If it's not, then I'd say bool(a) is pretty much
> useless anyway. I don't think the python habit of replacing every "if a !=0
> :" by "if a:" is a good one, but I acknowledge the habit is widespread. So
> laying mines by breaking its equivalence is a bad idea.
>
> On Tuesday, 27 September 2022 at 05:00:00 UTC-7 axio...@yahoo.de wrote:
>
>> I think that x.__bool__ should return True only if x is *known* to be
>> zero.
>>
>> I have three docstrings that support this view:
>>
>> rings/real_mpfi.pyx\03905:def __bool__(self):
>> rings/real_mpfi.pyx\03906-"""
>> rings/real_mpfi.pyx\03907-Return ``True`` if ``self`` is not
>> known to be exactly zero.
>> rings/real_mpfi.pyx\03908-
>> --
>> rings/complex_interval.pyx\01495:def __bool__(self):
>> rings/complex_interval.pyx\01496-"""
>> rings/complex_interval.pyx\01497-Return ``True`` if ``self`` is
>> not known to be exactly zero.
>> rings/complex_interval.pyx\01498-
>> --
>> symbolic/expression.pyx\03310:def __bool__(self):
>> symbolic/expression.pyx\03311-"""
>> symbolic/expression.pyx\03312-Return True unless this symbolic
>> expression can be shown by Sage
>> symbolic/expression.pyx\03313-to be zero.  Note that deciding if
>> an expression is zero is
>>
>> and I have not found a docstring contradicting this point of view.
>> However, the behaviour of (fixed precision) power series is different:
>>
>> sage: R. = QQ[[]]
>> sage: f = t.add_bigoh(5) - t
>> sage: f
>> O(t^5)
>> sage: not f
>> True
>>
>> I think that this is a bug.
>>
>> One implication is, as noticed by Chris Wuthrich, that the product "x *
>> y" is not necessarily zero, even if "not x" gives True.
>>
>> Before trying to create a branch, I'd like to hear other opinions.
>>
>> Martin
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/73d3e6ae-f431-466e-a8c4-34ebc59f9e77n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mEktABgG8zMAjWZ-dG6%3D7CF%3DG-%3DcCbKUGz5cqcvo_D_A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: is it intentional that prod does not stop when it hits 0?

[David Roe]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 4:39 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel <
sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> @chris: that's a great point.  Although I thought that the convention for
> "_bool_" is to return False only if it provably False, and otherwise True?
>

That's not the convention for p-adics:

sage: bool(O(5^2))
False


> @john: yes, in my very particular case I can pre-allocate the list,
> compute an element and store it in the list if it is non-zero, otherwise
> stop.  But that feels very clumsy.  I.e.;
>
> lf = [None]*len(X)
> for i, x in enumerate(X):
> f = compute_factor(x)
> if f:
> lf[i] = f
> else:
> p = f
> break
> else:
> p = prod(lf)
>
> Since in this very particular case, compute_factor likely dominates
> everything else, I can use append, too.  However, I certainly do not want
> to call compute_factor anymore once I have found a zero.
>

If you don't care about the balanced product, you can do
def short_circuit_mul(total, n):
if total == 0:
return total
return total * n
p = itertools.accumulate(X, short_circuit_mul)

Since prod is supposed to be able to multiply a very general set of objects
in sage, I don't think it's a good idea to add short-circuiting code to it
in general.
David



>
> Martin
> On Friday, 23 September 2022 at 10:28:57 UTC+2 john.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> If you really have a list and not just a generator, might it be worth
>> a first pass to see if there's a 0 in the list before forming the
>> product? With the tree structure for efficiently computing the
>> product, you might be doing a lot of multiplication before hitting the
>> zero item. I think that all(L) will be True if and only if L contains
>> a zero.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Fri, 23 Sept 2022 at 09:11, chris wuthrich
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Handling with try and check would be bad, but even in general this is
>> an idea that may not be what we want. For instance there are cases where
>> the product is interesting even if it "is zero".
>> >
>> > sage: x = Qp(5,10)(0)
>> > sage: y = x.add_bigoh(5)
>> > sage: not x, not y
>> > (True, True)
>> > sage: x * 5, y * 5
>> > (0, O(5^6))
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "sage-devel" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/28fee9ed-e94e-4f04-8e80-c02b585cafd3n%40googlegroups.com.
>>
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/de9719f7-1bbb-427a-8ab0-a8e12a5ea234n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_kvXQfnKJfGenFbrq6CHiNqbDSHn4tJdbBzqx0VkjO2nw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

[David Roe]

This is Github's documentation for doing it, but it's pretty annoying:

https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/committing-changes-to-your-project/creating-and-editing-commits/creating-a-commit-with-multiple-authors

Maybe we could create some automation to add these kinds of comments to the
merge commit created when a PR is merged, or as a comment on the PR when
it's closed
David

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 10:51 AM kcrisman  wrote:

> Not sure where to ask this - here?  On the GH page documenting the
> transition and new workflow proposal, I don't see a way to have multiple
> AUTHORs in the way we usually kept track of it.  Note that often there were
> people who were authors who didn't show up on a specific commit, but which
> the discussion on a ticket made clear there was a consensus they should be.
>  (For instance, one might propose some code on sage-devel or sage-support,
> which then someone else puts on a branch.)  Do we have a proposal for a
> mechanism to keep track of this beyond PR-associated emails?  I realize
> that it's possible to put a different author than committer, but I'm not
> sure how that would work with multiple of both.
>
> If not, hat would not be an insurmountable difference for contributors,
> but would be a change from our historic practice which assigned credit
> "liberally", as it were.  For context, I thought of this as a potential
> contributor was asking about credit issues (not this precise issue, more
> generally) on a ticket.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/87584831-2a22-4f43-be96-046840ac480an%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_m%3DDx_QGeWLr2pOGZFbhbMA4V%3DO-6HBzSmTN0std_ncgg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

[David Roe]

Sage has a tradition of public voting, but I'm fine if people want to email
me separately with their vote and I can forward it along.
David

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 3:22 AM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:

> Do we require everyone willing to vote to do so on sage-devel, or it
> could be done elsewhere (not every contributor to Sage or its
> dependencies/packages is there) ?
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 6:23 PM David Roe  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Sage developers,
> > As announced in a parallel thread, we are voting to move Sage
> development from Trac to Github.  Several of us have created a wiki page
> attempting to summarize arguments in favor of each system, and this thread
> can serve as a space for people to make clear their own reasoning for
> favoring one option over the other.  This discussion has gotten heated at
> times, so remember to be considerate, respectful and polite: we are all
> aiming to make Sage better.
> > David
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mZzK6v7wWP2vS5JzHYVNd%3DPoaCDDTdQF-u8VTgE-ONcg%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq0bagggnCks_SH6x-TFrkvK9Wm2Ypn9_eyqRTRmaYD3mg%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mquXRbxkygrNAKE1o%2BAk7sWB4RRnVkZqUmRitToRGByA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: move Sage development to Github

[David Roe]

+1 for Github

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 1:36 PM William Stein  wrote:

> +1 for Github
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 10:23 AM David Roe  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Sage developers,
> > Following extensive discussion, both recently (prompted by issues
> upgrading the trac server) and over the last decade, we are calling a vote
> on switching Sage development from Trac to Github.  We've created a summary
> of the pros and cons of each system, a description of the development model
> to be used on github, and a trac ticket for coordinating work on the
> transition.  More work will need to be done to carry out the actual
> transition once voting is complete.
> >
> > The voting will last until noon Eastern time (16:00 UTC) on Wednesday,
> October 5.  Please use this thread only for sending votes, to make it
> easier to count them afterward; there is a parallel thread where you can
> make arguments in favor of either system.
> >
> > Finally, I will close with a plea to be involved in this vote and
> discussion even if you are not a core Sage developer.  By definition, core
> Sage developers have become comfortable with trac, and I think that one of
> the major arguments in favor of github is that it will help bring in new
> contributors who are not familiar with Sage's development workfow.  Anyone
> who has ever contributed to the Sage code base or who maintains a Sage user
> package is welcome to vote.
> > David
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3DyvZ869L66E1tFmziWDirbawSEABf_uc_j9Dy8VBFW8w%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>
>
>
> --
> William (http://wstein.org)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CACLE5GB%3D%3De4Abi-DA8NKoA6CdmocQZceyzOqin9Gpzw4MHZn8g%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3D0RKZum1%2BmH%3DE1XvdaRxsF4vkGDirRiWCMM8Q5dsZtPw%40mail.gmail.com.

[sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

[David Roe]

Dear Sage developers,
As announced in a parallel thread, we are voting to move Sage development
from Trac to Github.  Several of us have created a wiki page
 attempting
to summarize arguments in favor of each system, and this thread can serve
as a space for people to make clear their own reasoning for favoring one
option over the other.  This discussion has gotten heated at times, so
remember to be considerate, respectful and polite
: we are
all aiming to make Sage better.
David

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mZzK6v7wWP2vS5JzHYVNd%3DPoaCDDTdQF-u8VTgE-ONcg%40mail.gmail.com.

[sage-devel] VOTE: move Sage development to Github

[David Roe]

Dear Sage developers,
Following extensive discussion, both recently
 (prompted
by issues upgrading the trac server) and over
 the
 last
 decade
, we
are calling a vote on switching Sage development from Trac
 to Github .  We've
created a summary of the pros and cons of each system
, a description
of the development model to be used on github
, and
a trac ticket  for coordinating
work on the transition.  More work will need to be done to carry out the
actual transition once voting is complete.

The voting will last until noon Eastern time (16:00 UTC) on Wednesday,
October 5.  Please use this thread only for sending votes, to make it
easier to count them afterward; there is a parallel thread where you can
make arguments in favor of either system.

Finally, I will close with a plea to be involved in this vote and
discussion even if you are not a core Sage developer.  By definition, core
Sage developers have become comfortable with trac, and I think that one of
the major arguments in favor of github is that it will help bring in new
contributors who are not familiar with Sage's development workfow
.  Anyone who has
ever contributed to the Sage code base or who maintains a Sage user package
is welcome to vote.
David

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3DyvZ869L66E1tFmziWDirbawSEABf_uc_j9Dy8VBFW8w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

[David Roe]

When I did this a few weeks ago there were only a couple hundred.  I think
it's only showing people who have a github account linked to the email they
used on the commit (which may be lower than normal, since grad students and
postdocs may have used academic email accounts that are no longer active).

I'm sure we could get a full list of author names from git.
David

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 12:35 PM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 5:30 PM William Stein  wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 4:09 AM Dima Pasechnik 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 11:51 AM kcrisman  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>> "Subscribed to sage-devel" might not be a good criteria. For
> example,
> > > >>> Harald Schilly has been the webmaster of Sage since 2007 and likely
> > > >>> cares about this switch since it can impact him, but I don't think
> he
> > > >>> reads sage-devel.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > > If we're going to talk about previous practice, I can't remember
> there ever being any criterion other than the sage-devel one.  (And I think
> a few votes have been received by proxy in the past.)
> > > >
> > > > I still can't find a thread about rules for voting, but I did find
> this presumably relevant one, on another at-least-as controversial topic
> (but please let's not revisit past controversies): So I'll withdraw my 2/3
> proposal, but suggest we do keep sage-devel as the criterion.
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/dR3_eyIUyac/m/LyALpiLcHuQJ
> Quoting from William (8 years ago!!!)
> > > >
> > > > This is a simple majority vote for ...
> > > >  I will close voting on Monday at midnight PST. (If the vote
> > > > is an exact tie, then that means "No" - there must be a simple
> > > > majority for this to pass.) Any member of the sage-devel mailing
> > > > list may vote or abstain. I will delete any messages in this thread
> > > > that is not a vote -- if you want to make further arguments for or
> > > > against, do so elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > And from
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/dR3_eyIUyac/m/Ooek9-z_oQgJ
> > > > I kept the voting simple and
> > > > consistent with how we've done all past votes, rather than using a
> > > > more complicated voting system, since I didn't want to make even the
> > > > voting process itself contentious.
> > >
> > > Given the tensions, I'd be more careful here. We're really not too
> > > interested in opinions of random subscribers to sage-devel
> > > (I don't have enough rights to see who's there).
> > >
> > > We can instead use
> > > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/graphs/contributors
> >
> > Does that only show the top 100?  Is there any way to see more?
>
> Sure, see
> https://docs.github.com/en/rest/repos/repos#list-repository-contributors
> One can get all via REST API
>
> > There's been far more than 100 contributors to sage...
> >
> > > (by the way, by looking at this list I found that johanrosenkilde
> > > works for GitHub now :-))
> > >
> > > Dima
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/ea60ae31-33c6-45d3-86d5-4ca14169bcf0n%40googlegroups.com
> .
> > >
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq1eij_nn_Fq_xsnioz%3Ds3gip%2B_RjXm_bm7sA8ACjxbc5Q%40mail.gmail.com
> .
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > William (http://wstein.org)
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CACLE5GB%2Bp6m194jXHWL6AZZNjhbyKHadb%2Bp0nS7ai91%2BMWe9aQ%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq3PZDwL1gXG1zqfi%3DZC3vQLZdbLY3mbc_4JN%2B-kFcyLwA%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit