On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:10 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 9:02 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> I think the right thing to do in this case is to carefully understand
>> the intention of the license (possibly consult with a lawyer), and
>> also to possibly write a letter to the OE
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 9:02 PM, William Stein wrote:
> I think the right thing to do in this case is to carefully understand
> the intention of the license (possibly consult with a lawyer), and
> also to possibly write a letter to the OEIS foundation with a petition
> for them to reconsider their
Thanks to everyone for their suggestions! I'll try to implement (or
start implementing) them soon.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group a
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:23 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 30 November 2010 10:48, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>> On 2010-11-30 00:55, Volker Braun wrote:
>>> nobody wants to give a positive review until it has been tried on all
>>> platforms
>>
>> I think "testing on every platform" is not a necessary
If you're looking for an interesting but easy review, check out
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7644
The patch implements power series reversion (inverse under
composition) with under 20 lines of code (plus ~60 lines of
docstring), using Lagrange inversion. If you need to remind yourse
It would be interesting to compare Intel MKL vs. AMD ACML vs. threaded
ATLAS.
The most useful optimization right now is probably to enable threading
in ATLAS. None of the vendor libraries are free to distribute.
While on the topic of ATLAS, let me plug my spkg at
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_tra
(Please ignore my original response to this thread, which I removed. I
misread the simple one line question!)
I found the following by googling:
http://www.enthought.com/epd/mkl/
A developer once told me that MKL was worse than ATLAS. Perhaps it
depends on the platform? Either that or Intel have
Sage is not a BLAS/Lapack. It is a large distribution of Open Source
mathematical software (amongst other things). It does however include
a BLAS.
Do you mean has anyone compared Sage linked to ATLAS, etc. with Sage
linked to MKL?
I just googled ATLAS vs MKL and got this page, which seems to say
Its true that backward compatibility is not one of the goals of
Fedora, but rather testing new AND existing code. But the two problems
that prevent Sage from building on Fedora 14 affect everyone: mpir has
a security issue and ecl/maxima contain invalid code that just happens
to compile on older gc
On 30 November 2010 09:41, Volker Braun wrote:
> Meanwhile, Sage still fails to build on Fedora, one of the most
> popular linux distributions, because the ecl/maxima update is stuck in
> limbo (http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10187).
That's not entirely true. The latest "stabe" Sage i
On 30 November 2010 10:48, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2010-11-30 00:55, Volker Braun wrote:
>> nobody wants to give a positive review until it has been tried on all
>> platforms
>
> I think "testing on every platform" is not a necessary condition for a
> ticket to receive positive_review. For rev
Has anyone compiled SAGE with Intel MKL ?
Reference:
http://www.scipy.org/Installing_SciPy/Linux#head-7ce43956a69ec51c6f2cedd894a4715d5bfff974
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-mkl/
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group
On 2010-11-30 00:55, Volker Braun wrote:
> nobody wants to give a positive review until it has been tried on all
> platforms
I think "testing on every platform" is not a necessary condition for a
ticket to receive positive_review. For reviewing a ticket, I think that
looking at the code is far mo
Well fortunately there are exceptions to the rule, otherwise we would
never update any spkg :-)
Meanwhile, Sage still fails to build on Fedora, one of the most
popular linux distributions, because the ecl/maxima update is stuck in
limbo (http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10187).
On Nov
On 30 Nov., 10:03, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Done.
Thank you!
Cheers,
Simon
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com
Hi Simon,
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Simon King wrote:
> Can one of the administrators please take care of it and remove the
> wrong resolution, so that it is officially open?
Done. Here's the procedure for reopening a closed ticket:
1. You have a closed ticket.
2. Reopen it so its status
On 2010-11-30 00:55, Volker Braun wrote:
> the release manager will not run in on the build bot
> until it has been positively reviewed...
False. There are 4 spkgs in sage-4.6.1.alpha2 in the needs_review
status (two of them now have a positive_review, cvxopt (#6456) and
readline (#9523) remain to
Thanks John, I'll try that.
John
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:50 PM, John H Palmieri
wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2:24 pm, Niles wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 9:11 am, John Cremona wrote:
>>
>> > Can anyone tell me how to make just part of the pdf reference manual,
>> > specifically the part from a single .py fil
18 matches
Mail list logo
