[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: mercurial --> plain text --> mercurial

Google Groups has a new interface (which looks like Google Reader). They seem to have lifted that restriction along with the unveiling of the new interface. It's been around for a few months. I guess they're distancing themselves from their Usenet roots, i.e. no longer keeping their own interna

[sage-devel] Re: Another segfault with ATLAS and large matrices

On 12 Aug., 02:15, leif wrote: > On 11 Aug., 23:21, Volker Braun wrote: > > > I built a Sage binary distribution on redhawk with atlas-3.8.4.spkg and > > SAGE_FAT_BINARY=yes. It is at: > > >http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/vbraun/Sage/sage-4.7.1.rc2/dist... > > > Please let me know if it fix

[sage-devel] Re: Another segfault with ATLAS and large matrices

On 11 Aug., 23:21, Volker Braun wrote: > I built a Sage binary distribution on redhawk with atlas-3.8.4.spkg and > SAGE_FAT_BINARY=yes. It is at: > > http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/vbraun/Sage/sage-4.7.1.rc2/dist... > > Please let me know if it fixes the segfaults. Or post your backtrace an

[sage-devel] Re: Another segfault with ATLAS and large matrices

I built a Sage binary distribution on redhawk with atlas-3.8.4.spkg and SAGE_FAT_BINARY=yes. It is at: http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/vbraun/Sage/sage-4.7.1.rc2/dist/sage-4.7.1.rc2-fat-x86_64-Linux.tar.gz Please let me know if it fixes the segfaults. Or post your backtrace and processor

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-edu] Geogebra 4 coming

Sounds exciting. Take a look at -Bruce (on the road) Sent from thing2 On Aug 11, 2011, at 8:49 AM, kcrisman wrote: > I was mentioning Geogebra to a student today, and decided to see > what's up. > > Perhaps this gives additional incentive fo

[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: mercurial --> plain text --> mercurial

Sorry, OT: On 11 Aug., 16:56, Keshav Kini wrote: > Sorry for the necropost. How did you manage that? At least Google's web interface refused a mailing list reply (to a thread of Feb/March 2011!) recently; it only gave me the option to directly reply to the author (without any explanation btw.,

[sage-devel] Re: size of a Sage install

On 11 Aug., 19:26, leif wrote: > * I for example get the following for a Sage 4.7.1.rc0 and 4.7.rc2 > installation, respectively: > > 950M    devel/sage-11577 > 105M    devel/sage-11602 > 238M    devel/sage-11602-v2 > 288M    devel/sage-11602-v3 > 409M    devel/sage-11602-v4 > 119M    devel/sage-1

[sage-devel] Re: size of a Sage install

On 11 Aug., 15:17, John Cremona wrote: > In this case there's no chance of making any such changes, and I do > not really need to anyway.  All that was important from the point of > view of Sage was to check that there had not been a 4-fold increase in > size from 4.6.2 to 4.7;  which there was no

[sage-devel] Geogebra 4 coming

I was mentioning Geogebra to a student today, and decided to see what's up. In brief, a lot! So this is an FYI to the Sage community. Here, Hohenwarter's abstract on a talk for the upcoming Geogebra 4 at their big conference - including GeogebraTube http://ggbconference2011.pbworks.com/w/page/40

[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: mercurial --> plain text --> mercurial

Sorry for the necropost. After talking to William I posted a patch at #3052, if someone wants to take a look. It doesn't export the repository as diffs, but as the more simplistic patches Mercurial actually uses internally (consisting of a series, per changeset per file, of ranges to delete and

Re: [sage-devel] Re: size of a Sage install

In this case there's no chance of making any such changes, and I do not really need to anyway. All that was important from the point of view of Sage was to check that there had not been a 4-fold increase in size from 4.6.2 to 4.7; which there was not. John > > In case it is, that's easy to sol

[sage-devel] Re: size of a Sage install

On 11 Aug., 14:12, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2011-08-11 12:41, John Cremona wrote: > > After building Sage the amount of filespace used is (as we all know) > > rather large.  I was just checking a 4.7 install, which is not used > > for any development pusposes, and is on a machine which I use but

Re: [sage-devel] size of a Sage install

Thanks for all the comments and suggestions. Two different machines, and both with IBM gpfs filesystems (both machines are big clusters, with 1000 and 3300 nodes respectively). On the older machine I see (in SAGE_ROOT with 4.6.2): masgaj@fe1%du -sh 3.8G. masgaj@fe1%du -bsh 2.5G. while o

Re: [sage-devel] size of a Sage install

On 2011-08-11 12:41, John Cremona wrote: > After building Sage the amount of filespace used is (as we all know) > rather large. I was just checking a 4.7 install, which is not used > for any development pusposes, and is on a machine which I use but do > not own, and where I was just told that the

Re: [sage-devel] size of a Sage install

Oops, of course I forgot to actually add the cc. Done now. On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Alex Ghitza wrote: > Dear John, > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:41 PM, John Cremona wrote: >> After building Sage the amount of filespace used is (as we all know) >> rather large.  I was just checking a 4.

Re: [sage-devel] size of a Sage install

Dear John, On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:41 PM, John Cremona wrote: > After building Sage the amount of filespace used is (as we all know) > rather large.  I was just checking a 4.7 install, which is not used > for any development pusposes, and is on a machine which I use but do > not own, and where

[sage-devel] Re: size of a Sage install

On 11 Aug., 13:09, leif wrote: > On 11 Aug., 12:50, John Cremona wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM, John Cremona > > wrote: > > > After building Sage the amount of filespace used is (as we all know) > > > rather large.  I was just checking a 4.7 install, which is not used > > > for

[sage-devel] Re: size of a Sage install

On 11 Aug., 12:50, John Cremona wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM, John Cremona wrote: > > After building Sage the amount of filespace used is (as we all know) > > rather large.  I was just checking a 4.7 install, which is not used > > for any development pusposes, and is on a machine w

[sage-devel] Re: Another segfault with ATLAS and large matrices

On 10 Aug., 08:45, leif wrote: > On 10 Aug., 07:42, leif wrote: > > > I don't know yet if this is again with a *binary* Sage distribution: It is. > >http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11674 > > I can reproduce this error with the *binary* Sage 4.7 distribution on > Ubuntu 10.04.3 x86_64

[sage-devel] Re: size of a Sage install

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM, John Cremona wrote: > After building Sage the amount of filespace used is (as we all know) > rather large.  I was just checking a 4.7 install, which is not used > for any development pusposes, and is on a machine which I use but do > not own, and where I was just

[sage-devel] size of a Sage install

After building Sage the amount of filespace used is (as we all know) rather large. I was just checking a 4.7 install, which is not used for any development pusposes, and is on a machine which I use but do not own, and where I was just told that the filespace was getting short, and found that the S

[sage-devel] Re: website/download stats

On Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:15:39 PM UTC+2, leif wrote: > > There's not necessarily a direct relation between the download speed > and how "near" (geographically) a server is. > Yes, that's also my impression based on some tests and so on. Especially when you are on a slower connection, a g