On Oct 29, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote: > Hi Henryk, > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:34 AM, David Roe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> Great! This has been on my list of things I'd like to have >> implemented for a while. >> >> Presumably, much of this code will be incorporated into the Sage >> library. So it's not really a "package" per se. Instead, you should >> make a ticket on trac (http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac), for which >> you need an account. Then you should post Mercurial patches there, >> that include both the changes to existing files and the new files >> that >> you've created (there's a Mercurial tutorial at >> http://sagemath.org/doc/prog/index.html if you need it). Then you >> should have someone review the code, at which point it can be merged >> into the current Sage release. >> David >> >> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Henryk Trappmann >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I developed a package to work with infinite power series. >>> You can work with the power series mostly like with functions, the >>> actual value of a coefficient is computed when requested. >>> For example (the working title is PowerSeriesRingI, "I" like >>> infinite): > [...] >>> My question is about making this a standard SAGE package. >>> Is there any guideline how to do so and what are the criteria and >>> requirements? > > I just like to add that you might find the "Sage Developer's Guide" > useful: > > http://www.sagemath.org/doc/prog/prog.html > > Since we're working with trac and use mercurial from a Sage interface, > I strongly recommend that you use our Sage interface to mercurial, not > mercurial itself. That is, please use the family hg_sage.* of commands > for interfacing with mercurial, and not hg (which is your local copy > of mercurial). Using hg_sage.* for producing patches makes it easier > for other developers to review your code. In some cases, this can > actually expedite the review process.
This is somewhat OT, but just to clarify, I never use the hg_sage.* commands and I never have any issues. Nor do a many of the other developers I know. For example, lots of people find mercurial queues very useful and they are not exposed in the hg_sage interface at all. Also, it's a lot easier to find documentation on the "unwrapped" version. It is important to use mercurial to make your patches integrate well into the workflow, but hg_sage.* simply calls the command-line hg, and so the output is byte-for-byte exactly the same. > Also, you might find the "Trac Guidelines for Sage" at > > http://wiki.sagemath.org/TracGuidelines > > useful. +1 to this. More on topic, much better merge the two and have the best of both than have competing implementations. Shouldn't this belong in sage/ rings rather than in combinat? - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
