I looked at the ticket #12536 and came to the following conclusion: It is likely (I do not understand much about the changes and the #14019 issue) that indeed 'relabel()' is based on existing code, which is probably buggy, so the bug #14019 is only a subsequent error. At the same time I conclude that 'relabel()' was not sufficiently tested! Responsible for the latter in my opinion are Anne and the reviewer. Of course this does not help much to solve the issue...
In general a couple of simple examples is not a sufficient test. But also consider that most mathematicians are not professional software developers (e.g. at least with basic knowledge in software engineering and adequate practical experience) and just didn't know better. I think that is a big problem. There should be also resources for maintenance in addition of grants for the 'new fancy stuff'. Probably all of you would agree that at a certain point building on top of broken software is just stupid and leads to nowhere. But this happens in real life (probably less in Sage in comparison to other CAS, but who knows) and therefore for me it seems that this insight is not yet in the heads of all research sponsors and researchers. Jakob -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
