Re: [sage-devel] please review bug fix #20513

Thanks VIncent, and Volker for the review. According to the ticket I started to test the change (as I had reported the problem originally on sage-support), and I don't know why that never got finished. John On 9 July 2016 at 22:01, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, >

[sage-devel] Re: classifying trac tickets as silently incorrect results

On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 5:17:48 PM UTC-5, Jakob Kroeker wrote: > > Please don't. That field is suppose to be used for tickets which implement >> the stopgap when it is applicable > > > Unfortunately stopgaps for all the silent wrong results will hardly be > accepted. > That's just not

Re: [sage-devel] Subfield generated by 0: segmentation fault

On 2 July 2016 at 11:11, Jeroen Sijsling wrote: > Hello, > > In Sage 7.2 I get the following error: > > R. = PolynomialRing(QQ) > pol_rep = [1, -12, 70, -264, 757, -1872, 4258, -8796, 15922, -24900, 33886, > -40608, 43117, -40608, 33886, -24900, 15922, -8796, 4258, -1872,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: classifying trac tickets as silently incorrect results

> well, we already have this: https://trac.sagemath.org/report/79 > IMHO it's a great idea to have all such places explicitly marked. +1. I think it's great to have such a list which contains both the ones for which we wish to add a stopgap, as well as those we don't/haven't yet. If the stopgap

Re: [sage-devel] Re: classifying trac tickets as silently incorrect results

On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 11:32:57 PM UTC+1, vdelecroix wrote: > > On 09/07/16 18:17, Jakob Kroeker wrote: > > > >> > >> Please don't. That field is suppose to be used for tickets which > implement > >> the stopgap when it is applicable > > > > > > Unfortunately stopgaps for all the