On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
By the way, I wish the queues *were* exposed via the hg_sage.* interface. > 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. Yep. >> 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? +1 William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
