On 2012-10-16 08:17, Paul-Olivier Dehaye wrote:
> Is it always encouraged to upgrade spkgs to more current stable
> upstream version?
No. I'd say it's neither encouraged nor discouraged.
Usually patching a package is easier than updating to the latest
upstream version. Sometimes upstream upgrade
Hi Simon,
>
> If I understand correctly, we are talking here about "modifying" in the
> sense of "removing stuff". IMHO, it would be totally
> against the purpose of the pickle jar, if we would encourage (or just
> explain how) to remove stuff from the pickle jar.
>
> If the pickle jar doc te
> Here is my vote: You may add stuff to the pickle jar. But please do not
> remove stuff from the pickle jar.
>
+1
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe fr
On 16/10/2012, at 7:17 PM, Paul-Olivier Dehaye
wrote:
> Is it always encouraged to upgrade spkgs to more current stable
> upstream version?
> Right now scipy is at 0.9, applied with patches to fix a bug that is
> now corrected in version 0.11 (normally, I have not tested yet). The
> patch does no
Is it always encouraged to upgrade spkgs to more current stable
upstream version?
Right now scipy is at 0.9, applied with patches to fix a bug that is
now corrected in version 0.11 (normally, I have not tested yet). The
patch does not seem to work under Mac OS X 10.8, so I was wondering if
instead
Hi Andrew,
On 2012-10-15, Andrew Mathas wrote:
> It would help if there was some good (or even bad) documentation available
> which described how to update the pickle jar.
> As far as I am aware this is
> not covered in the developers guide, or anywhere else.
If I understand correctly, we are
I was the person who updated the pickle jar in trac 9265. Like Jeroen, "I
personally don't know much about the pickle jar in Sage", but I was given
some instructions about what to do which came down to set SAGE_PICKLE_JAR,untar
the pickle jar and copy the new pickles in, and tar the jar up
agai
Hi,
I really like SearchForest and have been using it some times. But, other
times, my children rules are such that two disctinct branches overlap. So,
just last weekend, I coded a similar SearchGraph class taking as input a
set of roots and a children rule where an element can be obtained in
> How about that...
>
>> ("Fails" in the sense that something
>> does work whil the doctest is written with the assumtption that it
>> will not). Is it possible that you can change that example to an
>> equivalent one with a curve of conductor much greater then 30?
PS: http://www.lmfdb.org/E
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:23 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> On 15 October 2012 17:15, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:22 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>>> 1. In the Developers' Guide
>>> http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/conventions.html regarding
>>> optional doctests it says
>>
On 15 October 2012 17:15, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:22 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>> 1. In the Developers' Guide
>> http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/conventions.html regarding
>> optional doctests it says
>>
>> "Mark a doctest as optional if it requires optional package
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:22 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> 1. In the Developers' Guide
> http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/conventions.html regarding
> optional doctests it says
>
> "Mark a doctest as optional if it requires optional packages; even
> better, mark it as optional - PKG_NAME if it re
Some comments from the relevant tickets:
from Volker Braun:
> You are not supposed to update the pickle jar, it is only here to ensure
> backward compatibility. If at all possible, you should be using the
> register_unpickle_override to work around the change and unpickle into the
> new class.
On Monday, October 15, 2012 1:17:57 AM UTC-4, Johan Grönqvist wrote:
>
> 2012-10-15 01:36, jaebond skrev:
> > On Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:09:25 AM UTC-4, Johan Gr�nqvist wrote:
> >
> > "gcc -v" can tell you what you have ; in my case the target is
> > arm-linux-gnueabihf.
> > I ran
On Monday, 15 October 2012 19:22:26 UTC+8, John Cremona wrote:
>
> 1. In the Developers' Guide
> http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/conventions.html regarding
> optional doctests it says
>
> "Mark a doctest as optional if it requires optional packages; even
> better, mark it as optional - P
1. In the Developers' Guide
http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/conventions.html regarding
optional doctests it says
"Mark a doctest as optional if it requires optional packages; even
better, mark it as optional - PKG_NAME if it requires the package
PKG_NAME."
I think this is not strong enough,
Hi Jeroen,
On 2012-10-15, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> But
> #9265 does exactly that: it removes some old pickles because they failed
> to unpickle in the new version. Since I don't know much about the
> pickle jar, I don't have an opinion on this. But if there is objection
> on #9265, it will need
I personally don't know much about the pickle jar in Sage, apart that
it's the tarball pickle_jar/pickle_jar.tar.bz2 in extcode(*).
I thought it was meant to test unpickling of old pickles, which would
mean that one normally should not remove pickles from the jar. But
#9265 does exactly that: it
18 matches
Mail list logo
