On Feb 18, 6:00 pm, William Stein wrote:
> We don't need a vote for experimental -- that's only for optional and
> standard.
> So, I've addedchompto experimental just now.
Can you clarify this? My understanding was:
1) An experimental package addition should have a trac ticket, but
anything r
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:00 PM, William Stein wrote:
> We don't need a vote for experimental -- that's only for optional and
> standard.
> So, I've added chomp to experimental just now.
Why don't we have a vote to make it optional? It seems like pretty
solid code, much better than most of the o
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Ryan Hinton wrote:
...
> OK, assume we solve (1) by requiring an indication of which partition
> a vertex belongs in and raising an exception otherwise. What about
> Graph algorithms that change the graph temporarily or just don't "do
> the right thing" for Bipart
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
GIven that this pops up again and again, and works on every other
platform (these are not tests with lots of rounding), is there any way
to get Solaris to compile the correct constant double for e?
I rushed my previous email about this, since I had to leave to get a trai
On Feb 26, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Florent Hivert wrote:
Hi there,
In order to sanitize the behavior of objects, parents and elements
in sage,
I'm about to add some tests to the framework. I think they are all
reasonable
but I may be asking to much. Please comment about the following:
1
David Roe wrote:
+1 from me.
David
Thanks. How many +1's do we need before it gets done?
I can implement this easily and quickly, so don't mind doing it myself.
I currently have two versions of Sage I'd like to test, but can't do them in
parallel, despite the multiple processors I have.
Da
+1 from me.
David
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:41 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
> If one runs 'make test' it creates a file test.log in $HOME/.sage/tmp
>
> If would be useful if that file had the date and time in its name, or
> even the PID so one could test multiple versions of Sage on the same
> machine
Nick Alexander wrote:
On 26-Feb-10, at 10:41 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
If one runs 'make test' it creates a file test.log in $HOME/.sage/tmp
If would be useful if that file had the date and time in its name, or
even the PID so one could test multiple versions of Sage on the same
machine at the
On Feb 26, 10:13 am, David Kirkby wrote:
>
> I'd
> copyhttp://boxen.math.washington.edu/sage/solaris/sage-4.3.0.1-Solaris-10...
>
> to your home directory, and use 'p7zip -d filename' to decompress the
> binary. I believe you can then add your own package and test it.
Thanks, I've done that, and
On Feb 26, 1:20 pm, Volker Braun wrote:
> The p0 doesn't build for me on Fedora 12 gcc 4.4.3. Adding #include
> fixes it. You can get the (trivially) patched src/include/
> chomp/multiwork/mwdata.h from
>
> http://www.stp.dias.ie/~vbraun/mwdata.h
>
> With this change, it builds fine.
Thanks for
One should definitely look into possibility of buying a BladCenter.
The support for InfiniBand and Server RAID, many storage options and
highly configurable interfaces make this system an outstanding hardware
to work on.
There is always an opportunity for hardware diversity also. That makes
possibl
> Quick question: many types have methods one_element() and
> zero_element() which are used a lot. For example, ZZ.one() and
> ZZ.zero() are aliases for ZZ.one_element() and ZZ.zero_element(). Is
> your intention to deprecate these longer names?
I had the impression that this has been already
Hi David,
> > In order to sanitize the behavior of objects, parents and elements in sage,
> > I'm about to add some tests to the framework. I think they are all
> > reasonable
> > but I may be asking to much. Please comment about the following:
> >
> > 1 - Any SageObject must have an equali
On 26-Feb-10, at 12:59 PM, Florent Hivert wrote:
Hi there,
In order to sanitize the behavior of objects, parents and elements
in sage,
I'm about to add some tests to the framework. I think they are all
reasonable
but I may be asking to much.
I think your suggestions are reasonable
Quick question: many types have methods one_element() and
zero_element() which are used a lot. For example, ZZ.one() and
ZZ.zero() are aliases for ZZ.one_element() and ZZ.zero_element(). Is
your intention to deprecate these longer names?
John
On 26 February 2010 21:16, David Roe wrote:
>
>
>
The p0 doesn't build for me on Fedora 12 gcc 4.4.3. Adding #include
fixes it. You can get the (trivially) patched src/include/
chomp/multiwork/mwdata.h from
http://www.stp.dias.ie/~vbraun/mwdata.h
With this change, it builds fine.
Volker
- build log --
make[2]:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Florent Hivert <
florent.hiv...@univ-rouen.fr> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> In order to sanitize the behavior of objects, parents and elements in sage,
> I'm about to add some tests to the framework. I think they are all
> reasonable
> but I may be asking to much.
Hi
Sorry for replying to myself.
> In order to sanitize the behavior of objects, parents and elements in sage,
> I'm about to add some tests to the framework. I think they are all reasonable
> but I may be asking to much. Please comment about the following:
>
> 1 - Any SageObject must hav
Hi there,
In order to sanitize the behavior of objects, parents and elements in sage,
I'm about to add some tests to the framework. I think they are all reasonable
but I may be asking to much. Please comment about the following:
1 - Any SageObject must have an equality methods such that
On 26-Feb-10, at 10:41 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
If one runs 'make test' it creates a file test.log in $HOME/.sage/tmp
If would be useful if that file had the date and time in its name, or
even the PID so one could test multiple versions of Sage on the same
machine at the same time.
+1. Could
On 26 February 2010 19:21, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> GIven that this pops up again and again, and works on every other platform
> (these are not tests with lots of rounding), is there any way to get Solaris
> to compile the correct constant double for e?
There are other maths libraries, and I know
OK, your .p0 package installed fine on t2, using sage-4.3.0.1. If its
helpful to you, I have a copy of that at:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mhampton/solaris/sage-4.3.0.1-Solaris-10-SPARC-sun4u-or-sun4v.tar
The package that is currently in the experimental repository must be
an earlier e
GIven that this pops up again and again, and works on every other
platform (these are not tests with lots of rounding), is there any way
to get Solaris to compile the correct constant double for e?
On Feb 26, 2010, at 10:29 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
If anyone has a spare minute, there are a c
You could try stressing that install a little more by testing with the
"-long" option. If those pass then I wouldn't worry about it too
much. Perhaps some system process like a file-indexer fired up in the
middle of the first run?
-Marshall
On Feb 26, 4:46 am, ErwinJunge wrote:
> Hi again,
>
>
Thanks for the reply. Response to your suggestions below.
On Feb 26, 1:21 pm, David Joyner wrote:
> ...snip...
>
> > I considered another option. Why not just wait until an edge is added
> > to figure out whether a node is left or right? Because all the
> > vertices should be in one set or the
If one runs 'make test' it creates a file test.log in $HOME/.sage/tmp
If would be useful if that file had the date and time in its name, or
even the PID so one could test multiple versions of Sage on the same
machine at the same time.
Dave
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@g
If anyone has a spare minute, there are a coupler of tickets I created
for numerical noise issues on Solaris.
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8375
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8374
They should not take long to review.
Dave
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-
This is an interesting post. A few informal comments below.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Ryan Hinton wrote:
> I'm having a lovely conversation with myself in the comments for trac
> #8350 that I want to share. :-)
>
> There are two related problems.
>
> 1. The current BipartiteGraph class i
No idea. They're all timeout failures, but the other timings seem
reasonable. If it doesn't pop up again I wouldn't worry about it too much.
David
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:46 AM, ErwinJunge wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I tried running the failed tests again, and now they all passed.
> Strange...
>
On 26 February 2010 17:44, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Feb 26, 8:51 am, mhampton wrote:
> Did you use the .p0 version of the chomp spkg? See below for the
> link. I "built" it on t2, but by hand: executing the commands in the
> spkg-install file manually, because I don't have my own copy of a s
Maybe I didn't - I downloaded the copy at
www.sagemath.org/packages/experimental,
which doesn't have a "p0". I'll try yours when I have a chance.
Incidentally it seems that using "sage -i foo.spkg" is broken on t2
because of some non-standard option in grep that is used when fetching
packages (b
On Feb 26, 8:51 am, mhampton wrote:
> I got those networking failures when trying to build chomp on t2,
> using sage-4.3.0.1. If someone built chomp on t2, what sage version
> were you using?
Did you use the .p0 version of the chomp spkg? See below for the
link. I "built" it on t2, but by hand:
I'm having a lovely conversation with myself in the comments for trac
#8350 that I want to share. :-)
There are two related problems.
1. The current BipartiteGraph class is incomplete, see trac #1941. I
want to use it, so I'm trying to plug some of the holes. In
particular, trac #8350 suggests
I got those networking failures when trying to build chomp on t2,
using sage-4.3.0.1. If someone built chomp on t2, what sage version
were you using?
Thanks,
Marshall
On Feb 20, 10:25 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> >> The code looks quite clean - only two warnings.
>
>
On 26 February 2010 15:31, William Stein wrote:
> Regarding sparc solaris, there are fast machines on skynet.
>
> -- William
Is there anything quicker than the Blade 2500, which is quite old? The
fastest processor that machine could have is 1.6 GHz, which is pretty
damm slow by today's standard
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 7:20 AM, mhampton wrote:
> One thing that would be nice is to have a faster machine than t2
> running solaris.
We have disk.math.washington.edu, which is an 8-core 2.3Ghz opteron
with 32GB of RAM, which runs *OpenSolaris*.
Also, one could setup a Solaris 10 x86 virtual ma
One thing that would be nice is to have a faster machine than t2
running solaris.
-Marshall
On Jan 22, 1:52 pm, William Stein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are considering purchasing a new computer for the sage.math
> cluster, which will act partly as a Sage notebook server.The
> budget is about $20-3
On Feb 18, 6:00 pm, William Stein wrote:
> We don't need a vote for experimental -- that's only for optional and
> standard.
> So, I've addedchompto experimental just now.
Can you clarify this? My understanding was:
1) An experimental package addition should have a trac ticket, but
anything
Hi again,
I tried running the failed tests again, and now they all passed.
Strange...
Any ideas on why the tests failed the first time and not the second
time?
Greetings,
Erwin Junge
On Feb 26, 10:57 am, ErwinJunge wrote:
> Hello sage-devel,
>
> I built sage-4.3.3 and then ran make test. The
Hello sage-devel,
I built sage-4.3.3 and then ran make test. The test failed on over 100
items, see the log here:
http://pastebin.com/3fF3HMbu
The machine I did this with has the following specs:
OS: Linux
Processors: 4x Opteron 280
Memory: 8GB
When I ran the build and when I ran the test this
Hi all,
there is a problem with save(), (at least) with sage 4.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.3.
I found trac#2046, but i am not sure if it is connected. somehow the
".sobj"-suffixing mechanism seems to be broken. i'd suggest just leaving the
filenames as specified.
see below for the details.
regards and thank
41 matches
Mail list logo
