Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.3.beta1 released

[Jeroen Demeyer]

On 2018-05-16 17:26, Erik Bray wrote:

I'm not sure, but I think this might be pip-related.  I think Jeroen
mentioned something about this to me a couple weeks ago.  Is it
possible you upgraded the pip in your Sage install?


Indeed, I guess you are using pip 10 by accident.

It might be a good idea to upgrade the pip in Sage and fix this issue.

--
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 post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-release] Re: Release process

[Volker Braun]

* Some buildbots are too slow to run the entire testsutie for every ticket
* Sometimes tests fail because of unrelated tickets are randomly failing
* Sometimes tests succeed even if the ticket introduces a random failure
* Sometimes buildbots are offline for a day, need rebooting, etc.
* Incremental builds may succeed but full rebuild might fail because of a 
ticket
 

On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 10:06:22 AM UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> On 15/05/2018 17:07, Volker Braun wrote: 
> > The integration branch is going to have its history rewritten regularly. 
>
> Why is that? Shouldn't the process be simply 
>
>   1. create a branch TMP = "integration branch" + "merged positive 
> review ticket" 
>   2. if merge fails: move back ticket to needs work and go back to 1 
>   3. if any test fails: move back ticket to needs work and go back to 1 
>   4. set the integration branch to TMP and go back to 1 
>
> > The issue is that unsuspecting developers might *base* their 
> contribution 
> > on the integration branch (i.e. go to github and select the branch with 
> the 
> > most recent commits), and then have it yanked out from under their feet 
> > when I rewrite it. 
>
> This would indeed be terrible. But to my mind, this should not happen. 
>
> Best 
> Vincent 
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.3.beta1 released

[Maarten Derickx]

pip should be able to uninstall itself so

sage -pip uninstall pip
sage -i pip

should give you the standard sage version of pip back. I did not test this, 
so use at your own risk.

On Wednesday, 16 May 2018 17:33:50 UTC+2, John Cremona wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2018, 16:26 Erik Bray,  
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 9:56 AM, John Cremona > > wrote:
>> > I started to build this yesterday after pulling from trac into a place 
>> where
>> > beta0 had already built OK.  This morning I find the lines
>> >
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> > [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>> >
>> > being repeated for ever.  I have left that going in case someone wants 
>> to
>> > see any log files.
>>
>> I'm not sure, but I think this might be pip-related.  I think Jeroen
>> mentioned something about this to me a couple weeks ago.  Is it
>> possible you upgraded the pip in your Sage install?
>>
>>
> Yes I did!  I had installed some stuff needed for LMFDB using sage -i pip 
>> instal ...  and it told me my pip was not the most recent and should be 
>> upgraded, so I did.
>>
>
> What should I do?
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 16 May 2018 at 08:44, Henri Girard > > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Bionic 18.04 AMD x8 64 bits, compile perfect. I started from fresh git
>> >> sage because upgrading from 8.2 failed. It couldn't find many libs. By 
>> the
>> >> way I found my crash problem while compiling : I had to config the bios
>> >> allowing warmer processing.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Le 15/05/2018 à 21:24, Sébastien Labbé a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> On Ubuntu 16.04, the command `./sage -t -p --all --long
>> >> --optional=sage,optional,external` finishes with:
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> sage -t --long src/sage/coding/code_constructions.py  # 1 doctest 
>> failed
>> >> --
>> >> Total time for all tests: 1821.3 seconds
>> >> cpu time: 11639.5 seconds
>> >> cumulative wall time: 14059.4 seconds
>> >> External software detected for doctesting: gurobi,latex
>> >> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> >>   File "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/src/bin/sage-runtests", line 127, in
>> >> 
>> >> err = DC.run()
>> >>   File
>> >> 
>> "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/control.py",
>> >> line 1176, in run
>> >> + ','.join(available_software.seen()))
>> >>   File
>> >> 
>> "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/control.py",
>> >> line 583, in log
>> >> self.logger.write(s + end)
>> >>   File
>> >> 
>> "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/control.py",
>> >> line 250, in write
>> >> f.write(x)
>> >> ValueError: I/O operation on closed file
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The code_construction error is copied below (I can not reproduce it) :
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> sage -t --long src/sage/coding/code_constructions.py
>> >> **
>> >> File "src/sage/coding/code_constructions.py", line 624, in
>> >> sage.coding.code_constructions.QuadraticResidueCodeOddPair
>> >> Failed example:
>> >> codes.QuadraticResidueCodeOddPair(17, GF(13))
>> >> Exception raised:
>> >> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> >>   File
>> >> 
>> "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py",
>> >> line 562, in _run
>> >> self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs)
>> >>   File

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.3.beta1 released

[Erik Bray]

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 9:56 AM, John Cremona  wrote:
> I started to build this yesterday after pulling from trac into a place where
> beta0 had already built OK.  This morning I find the lines
>
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
> [scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
>
> being repeated for ever.  I have left that going in case someone wants to
> see any log files.

I'm not sure, but I think this might be pip-related.  I think Jeroen
mentioned something about this to me a couple weeks ago.  Is it
possible you upgraded the pip in your Sage install?



> On 16 May 2018 at 08:44, Henri Girard  wrote:
>>
>> Bionic 18.04 AMD x8 64 bits, compile perfect. I started from fresh git
>> sage because upgrading from 8.2 failed. It couldn't find many libs. By the
>> way I found my crash problem while compiling : I had to config the bios
>> allowing warmer processing.
>>
>>
>> Le 15/05/2018 à 21:24, Sébastien Labbé a écrit :
>>
>> On Ubuntu 16.04, the command `./sage -t -p --all --long
>> --optional=sage,optional,external` finishes with:
>>
>> --
>> sage -t --long src/sage/coding/code_constructions.py  # 1 doctest failed
>> --
>> Total time for all tests: 1821.3 seconds
>> cpu time: 11639.5 seconds
>> cumulative wall time: 14059.4 seconds
>> External software detected for doctesting: gurobi,latex
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>   File "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/src/bin/sage-runtests", line 127, in
>> 
>> err = DC.run()
>>   File
>> "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/control.py",
>> line 1176, in run
>> + ','.join(available_software.seen()))
>>   File
>> "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/control.py",
>> line 583, in log
>> self.logger.write(s + end)
>>   File
>> "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/control.py",
>> line 250, in write
>> f.write(x)
>> ValueError: I/O operation on closed file
>>
>>
>> The code_construction error is copied below (I can not reproduce it) :
>>
>>
>>
>> sage -t --long src/sage/coding/code_constructions.py
>> **
>> File "src/sage/coding/code_constructions.py", line 624, in
>> sage.coding.code_constructions.QuadraticResidueCodeOddPair
>> Failed example:
>> codes.QuadraticResidueCodeOddPair(17, GF(13))
>> Exception raised:
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>   File
>> "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py",
>> line 562, in _run
>> self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs)
>>   File
>> "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py",
>> line 972, in compile_and_execute
>> exec(compiled, globs)
>>   File "> sage.coding.code_constructions.QuadraticResidueCodeOddPair[0]>", line 1, in
>> 
>> codes.QuadraticResidueCodeOddPair(Integer(17), GF(Integer(13)))
>>   File
>> "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/coding/code_constructions.py",
>> line 666, in Quadratic
>> ResidueCodeOddPair
>> return DuadicCodeOddPair(F,Q,N)
>>   File
>> "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/coding/code_constructions.py",
>> line 425, in DuadicCod
>> eOddPair
>> gg1 = P2(coeffs1)
>>   File "sage/structure/parent.pyx", line 920, in
>> sage.structure.parent.Parent.__call__ (build/cythonized/sage/structure/paren
>> 

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.3.beta0 released

[John Cremona]

On 16 May 2018 at 12:06, Samuel Lelièvre  wrote:

> Would changing the doctest from
>
> sage: pol.roots(multiplicities=False, proof=False)
>
> to
>
> sage: sorted(pol.roots(multiplicities=False, proof=False))
>
> solve this?
>

I think that in other places where roots are returned, the functino which
computes the roots does the sorting, so then it is not neccessary to use
sorted() in the doctest; this also has the advantage that if the
root-finding algorithm changes, that output does not change even when the
roots are now found in a different order.


>
> 2018-05-16 10:16 GMT+02:00 Dima Pasechnik :
>
>> in this case doctest basically compares strings,
>> obtained from the list of roots.
>> Order of the latter is not important.
>> By right, one should compare sets, not lists.
>>
>> --
>> 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 post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
> --
> 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 post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.3.beta0 released

[Samuel Lelièvre]

Would changing the doctest from

sage: pol.roots(multiplicities=False, proof=False)

to

sage: sorted(pol.roots(multiplicities=False, proof=False))

solve this?

2018-05-16 10:16 GMT+02:00 Dima Pasechnik :

> in this case doctest basically compares strings,
> obtained from the list of roots.
> Order of the latter is not important.
> By right, one should compare sets, not lists.
>
> --
> 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 post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-release] Re: Release process

[Jeroen Demeyer]

On 2018-05-16 12:44, Vincent Delecroix wrote:

- "integration" is intended to be used by bots only to check whether
a given positively reviewed ticket is worth a merge. It has no
reason to be used by any human.


The issue is that it may be accidentally used by a human by mistake.

--
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 post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-release] Re: Release process

[Jeroen Demeyer]

On 2018-05-16 11:26, Vincent Delecroix wrote:

It can be smarter than a hash, e.g. 8.3.beta2018-05-16. And we can
afford a daily release at GMT 00:00.


If you want to automate it anyway, you could instead automatically 
release a new "beta" whenever develop is updated.


--
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 post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-release] Re: Release process

[Vincent Delecroix]

On 16/05/2018 10:57, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:

On 2018-05-16 10:30, Vincent Delecroix wrote:

And I agree: there should be two branches whatever
they are called. Let's go for "develop + integration" (that were
"integration" + "TMP" in my previous e-mail).


In that case, I fully agree with your previous e-mail!


As a consequence, we would abandon beta releases


Why? I like the idea of betas because it makes it easy to name things. I 
can say "I rebased this on top of 8.3.beta1" and everybody understands 
what I mean. On the other hand, "I rebased this on top of 
6fc1e20c666283a301b4ff3f855013de8d206b35" is not so clear.


It can be smarter than a hash, e.g. 8.3.beta2018-05-16. And we can
afford a daily release at GMT 00:00.

Vincent

--
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 post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-release] Re: Release process

[Jeroen Demeyer]

On 2018-05-16 10:30, Vincent Delecroix wrote:

And I agree: there should be two branches whatever
they are called. Let's go for "develop + integration" (that were
"integration" + "TMP" in my previous e-mail).


In that case, I fully agree with your previous e-mail!


As a consequence, we would abandon beta releases


Why? I like the idea of betas because it makes it easy to name things. I 
can say "I rebased this on top of 8.3.beta1" and everybody understands 
what I mean. On the other hand, "I rebased this on top of 
6fc1e20c666283a301b4ff3f855013de8d206b35" is not so clear.


--
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 post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-release] Re: Release process

[Vincent Delecroix]

On 16/05/2018 10:26, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:

On 2018-05-16 10:23, Vincent Delecroix wrote:

TMP is public! People should just not base their work on as it is
likely to be abandoned. On the other hand, people should be encouraged
to base their work on "integration" and not on "latest beta".


It seems that you're thinking that there are 3 branches (develop, 
integration and TMP) while in reality there are only two (develop and TMP).


It seems that you have too much imagination about my thinking. I never
mentioned 3 branches. And I agree: there should be two branches whatever
they are called. Let's go for "develop + integration" (that were
"integration" + "TMP" in my previous e-mail).

As a consequence, we would abandon beta releases and simply provide
snapshots of the develop branch. That can also be completely automatized.

Vincent

--
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 post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-release] Re: Release process

[Jeroen Demeyer]

On 2018-05-16 10:23, Vincent Delecroix wrote:

TMP is public! People should just not base their work on as it is
likely to be abandoned. On the other hand, people should be encouraged
to base their work on "integration" and not on "latest beta".


It seems that you're thinking that there are 3 branches (develop, 
integration and TMP) while in reality there are only two (develop and TMP).


--
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 post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-release] Re: Release process

[Vincent Delecroix]

On 16/05/2018 10:15, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:

On 2018-05-16 10:06, Vincent Delecroix wrote:

On 15/05/2018 17:07, Volker Braun wrote:

The integration branch is going to have its history rewritten regularly.


Why is that? Shouldn't the process be simply

   1. create a branch TMP = "integration branch" + "merged positive
 review ticket"
   2. if merge fails: move back ticket to needs work and go back to 1
   3. if any test fails: move back ticket to needs work and go back to 1
   4. set the integration branch to TMP and go back to 1


The integration branch *is* TMP. Otherwise you are just shifting the 
problem from "integration branch" to TMP and people will complain that 
TMP should be publicly accessible.


TMP is public! People should just not base their work on as it is
likely to be abandoned. On the other hand, people should be encouraged
to base their work on "integration" and not on "latest beta".

I think about integration as a "permanent beta" where tickets are merged
one by one.


IMHO the workflow should be:

1. create a branch integration = develop + some selection of positive 
review tickets

2. if merge fails: move back ticket to needs work and go back to 1 > 3. if any 
test fails: move back ticket to needs work and go back to 1
4. set develop to integration and go back to 

Your version is completely unclear:
 * which ticket are you talking about in 2,3,4?
 * "go back to 1": makes no sense. Step 1 consider "a selection
   of positive review tickets" that is unspecified.

--
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 post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.3.beta0 released

[Dima Pasechnik]

in this case doctest basically compares strings,
obtained from the list of roots.
Order of the latter is not important.
By right, one should compare sets, not lists.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-release] Re: Release process

[Jeroen Demeyer]

On 2018-05-16 10:06, Vincent Delecroix wrote:

On 15/05/2018 17:07, Volker Braun wrote:

The integration branch is going to have its history rewritten regularly.


Why is that? Shouldn't the process be simply

   1. create a branch TMP = "integration branch" + "merged positive
 review ticket"
   2. if merge fails: move back ticket to needs work and go back to 1
   3. if any test fails: move back ticket to needs work and go back to 1
   4. set the integration branch to TMP and go back to 1


The integration branch *is* TMP. Otherwise you are just shifting the 
problem from "integration branch" to TMP and people will complain that 
TMP should be publicly accessible.


IMHO the workflow should be:

1. create a branch integration = develop + some selection of positive 
review tickets

2. if merge fails: move back ticket to needs work and go back to 1
3. if any test fails: move back ticket to needs work and go back to 1
4. set develop to integration and go back to 1

--
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 post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-release] Re: Release process

[Vincent Delecroix]

On 15/05/2018 17:07, Volker Braun wrote:

The integration branch is going to have its history rewritten regularly.


Why is that? Shouldn't the process be simply

 1. create a branch TMP = "integration branch" + "merged positive
   review ticket"
 2. if merge fails: move back ticket to needs work and go back to 1
 3. if any test fails: move back ticket to needs work and go back to 1
 4. set the integration branch to TMP and go back to 1


The issue is that unsuspecting developers might *base* their contribution
on the integration branch (i.e. go to github and select the branch with the
most recent commits), and then have it yanked out from under their feet
when I rewrite it.


This would indeed be terrible. But to my mind, this should not happen.

Best
Vincent

--
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 post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.3.beta1 released

[John Cremona]

I started to build this yesterday after pulling from trac into a place
where beta0 had already built OK.  This morning I find the lines

[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.
[scipy-0.19.1] Skipping scipy as it is not installed.

being repeated for ever.  I have left that going in case someone wants to
see any log files.

On 16 May 2018 at 08:44, Henri Girard  wrote:

> Bionic 18.04 AMD x8 64 bits, compile perfect. I started from fresh git
> sage because upgrading from 8.2 failed. It couldn't find many libs. By the
> way I found my crash problem while compiling : I had to config the bios
> allowing warmer processing.
>
> Le 15/05/2018 à 21:24, Sébastien Labbé a écrit :
>
> On Ubuntu 16.04, the command `./sage -t -p --all --long
> --optional=sage,optional,external` finishes with:
>
> --
> sage -t --long src/sage/coding/code_constructions.py  # 1 doctest failed
> --
> Total time for all tests: 1821.3 seconds
> cpu time: 11639.5 seconds
> cumulative wall time: 14059.4 seconds
> External software detected for doctesting: gurobi,latex
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/src/bin/sage-runtests", line 127, in
> 
> err = DC.run()
>   File "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-
> packages/sage/doctest/control.py", line 1176, in run
> + ','.join(available_software.seen()))
>   File "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-
> packages/sage/doctest/control.py", line 583, in log
> self.logger.write(s + end)
>   File "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-
> packages/sage/doctest/control.py", line 250, in write
> f.write(x)
> ValueError: I/O operation on closed file
>
>
> The code_construction error is copied below (I can not reproduce it) :
>
>
>
> sage -t --long src/sage/coding/code_constructions.py
> **
> File "src/sage/coding/code_constructions.py", line 624, in
> sage.coding.code_constructions.QuadraticResidueCodeOddPair
> Failed example:
> codes.QuadraticResidueCodeOddPair(17, GF(13))
> Exception raised:
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-
> packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 562, in _run
> self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs)
>   File "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-
> packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 972, in compile_and_execute
> exec(compiled, globs)
>   File " QuadraticResidueCodeOddPair[0]>", line 1, in 
> codes.QuadraticResidueCodeOddPair(Integer(17), GF(Integer(13)))
>   File "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-
> packages/sage/coding/code_constructions.py", line 666, in Quadratic
> ResidueCodeOddPair
> return DuadicCodeOddPair(F,Q,N)
>   File "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-
> packages/sage/coding/code_constructions.py", line 425, in DuadicCod
> eOddPair
> gg1 = P2(coeffs1)
>   File "sage/structure/parent.pyx", line 920, in
> sage.structure.parent.Parent.__call__ (build/cythonized/sage/
> structure/paren
> t.c:9734)
> return mor._call_(x)
>   File "sage/structure/coerce_maps.pyx", line 145, in
> sage.structure.coerce_maps.DefaultConvertMap_unique._call_ (build/cytho
> nized/sage/structure/coerce_maps.c:4555)
> raise
>   File "sage/structure/coerce_maps.pyx", line 140, in
> sage.structure.coerce_maps.DefaultConvertMap_unique._call_ (build/cytho
> nized/sage/structure/coerce_maps.c:4423)
> return 

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.3.beta1 released

[Henri Girard]

Bionic 18.04 AMD x8 64 bits, compile perfect. I started from fresh git 
sage because upgrading from 8.2 failed. It couldn't find many libs. By 
the way I found my crash problem while compiling : I had to config the 
bios allowing warmer processing.



Le 15/05/2018 à 21:24, Sébastien Labbé a écrit :
On Ubuntu 16.04, the command `./sage -t -p --all --long 
--optional=sage,optional,external` finishes with:


--
sage -t --long src/sage/coding/code_constructions.py  # 1 doctest failed
--
Total time for all tests: 1821.3 seconds
    cpu time: 11639.5 seconds
    cumulative wall time: 14059.4 seconds
External software detected for doctesting: gurobi,latex
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/src/bin/sage-runtests", line 127, in 


    err = DC.run()
  File 
"/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/control.py", 
line 1176, in run

    + ','.join(available_software.seen()))
  File 
"/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/control.py", 
line 583, in log

    self.logger.write(s + end)
  File 
"/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/control.py", 
line 250, in write

    f.write(x)
ValueError: I/O operation on closed file


The code_construction error is copied below (I can not reproduce it) :



sage -t --long src/sage/coding/code_constructions.py
**
File "src/sage/coding/code_constructions.py", line 624, in 
sage.coding.code_constructions.QuadraticResidueCodeOddPair

Failed example:
    codes.QuadraticResidueCodeOddPair(17, GF(13))
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
  File 
"/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", 
line 562, in _run

    self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs)
  File 
"/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", 
line 972, in compile_and_execute

    exec(compiled, globs)
  File "sage.coding.code_constructions.QuadraticResidueCodeOddPair[0]>", line 
1, in 

    codes.QuadraticResidueCodeOddPair(Integer(17), GF(Integer(13)))
  File 
"/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/coding/code_constructions.py", 
line 666, in Quadratic

ResidueCodeOddPair
    return DuadicCodeOddPair(F,Q,N)
  File 
"/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/coding/code_constructions.py", 
line 425, in DuadicCod

eOddPair
    gg1 = P2(coeffs1)
  File "sage/structure/parent.pyx", line 920, in 
sage.structure.parent.Parent.__call__ 
(build/cythonized/sage/structure/paren

t.c:9734)
    return mor._call_(x)
  File "sage/structure/coerce_maps.pyx", line 145, in 
sage.structure.coerce_maps.DefaultConvertMap_unique._call_ (build/cytho

nized/sage/structure/coerce_maps.c:4555)
    raise
  File "sage/structure/coerce_maps.pyx", line 140, in 
sage.structure.coerce_maps.DefaultConvertMap_unique._call_ (build/cytho

nized/sage/structure/coerce_maps.c:4423)
    return C._element_constructor(x)
  File 
"/home/slabbe/GitBox/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_ring.py", 
line 404, in _e

lement_constructor_
    return C(self, x, check=check, is_gen=False, construct=construct)
  File "sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_zmod_flint.pyx", line 
100, in sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_zmod_flint.Polynomial
_zmod_flint.__init__ 
(build/cythonized/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_zmod_flint.cpp:14358)

    lst = [k(i) for i in x]
  File "sage/structure/parent.pyx", line 920, in 
sage.structure.parent.Parent.__call__ 
(build/cythonized/sage/structure/paren

t.c:9734)
    return mor._call_(x)
  File "sage/rings/finite_rings/hom_prime_finite_field.pyx", line 
46, in sage.rings.finite_rings.hom_prime_finite_field.Secti
onFiniteFieldHomomorphism_prime._call_ 
(build/cythonized/sage/rings/finite_rings/hom_prime_finite_field.c:3457)
    raise ValueError("%s is not in the image of %s" % (x, 
self._inverse))
    ValueError: 3*z^3 + 2*z^2 + 8*z + 1 is not in the image of (map 
internal to coercion system -- copy before use)

    Ring morphism:
  From: Finite Field of size 13
  To:   Finite Field in z of size 13^4
**
1 item had failures:
   1 of  13 in sage.coding.code_constructions.QuadraticResidueCodeOddPair
    [146 tests, 1 failure, 2.56 s]

--
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 post to this group, send email to