> Sorry Nathan, but since you asked, these comments clearly violate item (4)
> of the proposed code of conduct, and arguably items (1) and (2) as well.
Well, then I believe that my only defense is that I was feeling very
alone trying to get item 3 observed. Indeed, a bug had been returning
wrong a
On Friday, 21 November 2014 17:50:19 UTC+11, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> Which kind of rule would you see in a code of conduct that would make
> messages like those you cited (not all were pointing at you, by the way)
> illegal ?
>
Sorry Nathan, but since you asked, these comments clearly viola
I don't see any big problems with the overall approach at first
glance. And the result is great!
David
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a working proof-of-concept to improve tracebacks for preparsed code
> and for Cython code. On http://trac.sagemath.or
Precisely.
Which kind of rule would you see in a code of conduct that would make
messages like those you cited (not all were pointing at you, by the way)
illegal ?
Additionally, I really do not believe that it qualifies as "people
insulting each other".
Nathann
P.S.: for those who never read th
Hello,
I have a working proof-of-concept to improve tracebacks for preparsed
code and for Cython code. On http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/71, you can
see an example of a new traceback.
This isn't a finished patch yet, but I would like some opinions on the
general approach first.
The main
> Hmmm... Well really I would be surprised if anybody can dig through
> sage-devel and find people insulting each other there.
"> Furthermore, I hate with all my heart that the same persons who come tell
> me that "they do not have sufficient time" suddenly find all the time they
> need to write
On Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:06:53 PM UTC-5, William wrote:
>
> Can somebody help me count the votes? I made pass through this long
> and complicated thread, and here's what I seem to have got:
>
> FOR a code of conduct, possibly suitably word-smithed (7):
>
> Jan Groenewald
> Travis Scr
> On 21/11/2014, at 18:54, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Francois Bissey
> wrote:
>> I have abstained from the thread but read quite a bit of it and I think
>> that the idea there are really two issues is correct.
>>
>> I have been thinking for a while but abstained
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Francois Bissey
wrote:
> I have abstained from the thread but read quite a bit of it and I think
> that the idea there are really two issues is correct.
>
> I have been thinking for a while but abstained because there is a lot of
> stuff already on the thread and w
I have abstained from the thread but read quite a bit of it and I think
that the idea there are really two issues is correct.
I have been thinking for a while but abstained because there is a lot of
stuff already on the thread and we are at a stage where the signal/noise
is quite low. So anyway si
Hello !!
> I've read the whole thread, and I have the impress that there are two
> distinct issues that are addressed. That's part of the reason people don't
> agree I think on the proposals. The first issue is to make sure that there
> are no public insults on sage-devel, trac, etc. by organizing
In the form it was presented at the very beginning I am strongly
against. This is completely infantilizing. That is a good idea to make
a vote, but please make it clear what the vote is about...
Vincent
2014-11-20 14:14 UTC−07:00, Bruno Grenet :
> Dear all,
>
> I've read the whole thread, and I h
Dear all,
I've read the whole thread, and I have the impress that there are two
distinct issues that are addressed. That's part of the reason people
don't agree I think on the proposals. The first issue is to make sure
that there are no public insults on sage-devel, trac, etc. by organizing
a
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Bill Page wrote:
> On 20 November 2014 12:56, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>> ...
>> Can you give an example of an expression that cannot be decided by
>> the Richardson's theorem?
>
> Well, no not exactly. Richardson's theorem is not about individual
> expressions, it i
On 20 November 2014 12:56, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> ...
> Can you give an example of an expression that cannot be decided by
> the Richardson's theorem?
Well, no not exactly. Richardson's theorem is not about individual
expressions, it is about decidability, i.e. computability, in general.
Conside
Can somebody help me count the votes? I made pass through this long
and complicated thread, and here's what I seem to have got:
FOR a code of conduct, possibly suitably word-smithed (7):
Jan Groenewald
Travis Scrimshaw
Anne Schilling
Mike Zabrocki
Andrew Mathas
Ben Salisbury
Viviane Pons
AGAIN
There isn't anything Sage-specific here. If in doubt use "simple".
On Thursday, November 20, 2014 5:24:57 PM UTC, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> with new git, one has new default behavour of git push. Namely, you can
> choose
> git config --global push.default matching
> or
> git config --global p
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=git+config+global+push.default+simple&l=1
On 11/20/2014 09:04 PM, John Cremona wrote:
> On 20 November 2014 17:24, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>> with new git, one has new default behavour of git push. Namely, you can
>> choose
>> git config --global push.default matching
>> or
On 2014-11-19, Tom Boothby wrote:
> In situations where it looks like real abuse has occurred, a committee
> of arbiters should exist to rule on it.
Instituting a committee of authorities seems misdirected -- unless one
takes an inclusive approach and declares that all participants are
hereby au
On 20 November 2014 17:24, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> with new git, one has new default behavour of git push. Namely, you can
> choose
> git config --global push.default matching
> or
> git config --global push.default simple
>
> Which one should one choose for Sage workflow?
> (sorry for possibly du
I guess it's not quite that bad. The fix was perhaps hackish.
sage: import brian
/Users/.../sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/brian/utils/sparse_patch/__init__.py:39:
UserWarning: Couldn't find matching sparse matrix patch for scipy version
0.14.0, but in most cases this shouldn't be a pr
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:53 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Nov 17, 2014 10:42 AM, "kcrisman" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > Is there a reason we need to have our own version?
>>>
>>
>> Actually, I think there is, because see the original ticket #9675:
>>
>> I must say I detected some problems with Brian
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Bill Page wrote:
> Perhaps this is more or less where Richardson's theorem enters.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson%27s_theorem
>
> We badly want a reliable way to determine when an expression is
> identically zero. In general this is not possible, but i
with new git, one has new default behavour of git push. Namely, you can
choose
git config --global push.default matching
or
git config --global push.default simple
Which one should one choose for Sage workflow?
(sorry for possibly dumb question).
Dima
--
You received this message because you
Perhaps this is more or less where Richardson's theorem enters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson%27s_theorem
We badly want a reliable way to determine when an expression is
identically zero. In general this is not possible, but if we restrict
our selves to a subset of "elementary" function
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Bill Page wrote:
>> So here (20) is a simpler expression for derivative of arg:
>>
>> (16) -> abs(x)==sqrt(x*conjugate(x))
>>Compiled code for abs has been cleared.
>>Compiled code for arg has been cl
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Bill Page wrote:
> So here (20) is a simpler expression for derivative of arg:
>
> (16) -> abs(x)==sqrt(x*conjugate(x))
>Compiled code for abs has been cleared.
>Compiled code for arg has been cleared.
>1 old definition(s) deleted for function or rule a
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Bill Page wrote:
> On 20 November 2014 01:54, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>>
>> What you posted looks good. But we need to test it for arg(z), re(z),
>> im(z) and any other non-analytic function that we can find.
>>
>
> (1) -> re(x)==(conjugate(x)+x)/2
>
So here (20) is a simpler expression for derivative of arg:
(16) -> abs(x)==sqrt(x*conjugate(x))
Compiled code for abs has been cleared.
Compiled code for arg has been cleared.
1 old definition(s) deleted for function or rule abs
On 20 November 2014 01:54, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>
> What you posted looks good. But we need to test it for arg(z), re(z),
> im(z) and any other non-analytic function that we can find.
>
(1) -> re(x)==(conjugate(x)+x)/2
Type:
Void
On 2014-11-19, Mike Zabrocki wrote:
> --=_Part_540_2024061462.1416427012442
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> A bunch of 10~20 guys who can talk together for days about having or
>
>> not a "code of conduct", each expressing his own voice and mixing it
>> with the others'... real
> Don't worry, native English speakers have no idea, either. I read the
> sage-sexist remark as a joke, but after Mike's followup, maybe not. In my
> experience, >95% of the
>
I was somewhat serious. The irony was that I really thought it was a
communication problem (either intentional or uni
Sure. You can find the full output in
http://pastebin.com/AqRU1iEy
El jueves, 20 de noviembre de 2014 09:28:41 UTC-2, Volker Braun escribió:
>
> Strange, we have AC_PROG_CXX() before AC_CHECK_HEADER([complex.h], ...)
>
> Can you post a bit more of the output?
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Hello !
To Viviane:
> Well, except that a few people here said that they felt insulted in the
past
> and didn't know what to do about it. And some expressed the need of some
> kind of code of conduct...
Indeed, but I do not know if they will be more protected by a code of
conduct. Actual insults
On Thursday, November 20, 2014 5:06:43 AM UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> The truth is that I have no idea how to say gender-neutral sentences
> in english without making my sentences non-deterministic, i.e. "a
> bunch of 20 [guys|girls] .* each expressing [his|her] own voice". And
> I hate non-
Well, except that a few people here said that they felt insulted in the
past and didn't know what to do about it. And some expressed the need of
some kind of code of conduct... William even said he knew some people had
left because of some bad behavior. So just saying "everthing is fine
because we
Strange, we have AC_PROG_CXX() before AC_CHECK_HEADER([complex.h], ...)
Can you post a bit more of the output?
On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:07:18 PM UTC, Nicolás Sirolli wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> After obtaining the source code from the git repository, I tried to build
> Sage but it failed. This
Hum… I thought we had updated that as part of the ticket to upgrade the gcc
included
in sage to 4.9.1. May be Jeroen missed that particular file, I am sure we have
mentioned
g++ in other parts of the documentation.
François
> On 20/11/2014, at 23:37, Nicolás Sirolli wrote:
>
> Thanks Francois!
Thanks Francois! That was it, I didn't have gcc-c++ installed.
In the list of the requirements given in the README file, gcc-c++ is not
mentioned (but gcc is). Perhaps it should be added to that list.
Nico.
El miércoles, 19 de noviembre de 2014 20:16:09 UTC-2, François escribió:
>
> This test i
>> In situations where it looks like real abuse has occurred, a committee
>> of arbiters should exist to rule on it. Otherwise, we're left with
>> mob rule and the onlooker effect (where nobody speaks up to stop
>> abuse, assuming somebody else will take care of it).
>
> My experience with sage li
Hi Tom,
On 2014-11-19, Tom Boothby wrote:
> In situations where it looks like real abuse has occurred, a committee
> of arbiters should exist to rule on it. Otherwise, we're left with
> mob rule and the onlooker effect (where nobody speaks up to stop
> abuse, assuming somebody else will take car
41 matches
Mail list logo
