On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 2:36:35 PM UTC+2, Timo Kaufmann wrote:
>
> In some cases where upstream has vanished and sage effectiely maintains
> the project through patches anyways, it may be a better idea to just fork
> the project.
>
It might be an idea to semi-automatize this, i.e., build a
2018-06-07 15:06 GMT+02:00 Jeroen Demeyer :
> And I'm not saying there should be absolutely no patches, just that they
>> should be the very last resort.
>>
>
> I mostly agree with this, it's what I'm already doing. It just depends
> where you put the borderline of "very last resort" and there we
On 2018-06-07 14:36, Timo Kaufmann wrote:
For what its worth, here is debians fix (self-labeled as "extra-hacky")
for that issue:
https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/sagemath/blob/master/debian/patches/dt-version-glpk-4.60-extra-hacky-fixes.patch
That's not a fix at all. I could easily come
2018-06-07 14:16 GMT+02:00 Jeroen Demeyer :
> On 2018-06-07 13:24, Timo Kaufmann wrote:
>
>> I don't really agree but even if that was the case, the PARI stackwarn
>> patch could have been handled through filtering within sage instead
>> (which I proposed in that ticket).
>>
>
> You proposed
Just posted a new version of NTL, version 11.1.0. I've completely
re-written the low-level small-prime FFT to use a truncated FFT algorithm.
More details here:
http://www.shoup.net/ntl/doc/tour-changes.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On 2018-06-07 13:24, Timo Kaufmann wrote:
I don't really agree but even if that was the case, the PARI stackwarn
patch could have been handled through filtering within sage instead
(which I proposed in that ticket).
You proposed filtering *in the testsuite*. That comes back to my point
about
2018-06-07 11:12 GMT+02:00 Jeroen Demeyer :
> I think that your post is focusing too much on tests, as if the only
> purpose of Sage is to pass its testsuite. It's actually the other way
> around: the purpose of the testsuite is to ensure that Sage functions
> correctly.
Of course. But the
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
Heisenfailures are very difficult to debug: One run, doctests fail. You make
a small tweak (one that changes the random seed), which you think fixes the
issue, and then tests pass. However, if it is a random test, then you have
no idea if you have
I think that your post is focusing too much on tests, as if the only
purpose of Sage is to pass its testsuite. It's actually the other way
around: the purpose of the testsuite is to ensure that Sage functions
correctly. By patching the testsuite to accept buggy output anyway,
you're not really
>
>
> On side note: Is there any problem with alphabetical order if the whole
> list is there?
>
>
Yes in my opinion. The animation takes 180 sec to display the whole list. I
think that's way longer than the average time people stay on the home page.
The result is a inequal exposure because the
10 matches
Mail list logo
