On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 12:01:42 PM UTC-5, Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
>
> So here is my proposal.
>
> * Starting from now, we allow ourselves to move on, using 9.1 betas and
> further releases for external python3 updates, including switch to
> ipython7, which seems to me the most urgent ma
On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 8:01:18 PM UTC-5, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
>
> 1. Branch off the 9.0 release
> 2. Drop compatibility in 9.1
> 3. Proceed as normal
> 4. If there are any major bugs found in 9.1, backport the fix to
> the 9.0 branch, and release a 9.0.1 that supports
On 1/14/20 12:01 PM, Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
>
> [A] It seems to me that the conclusion of the vote is rather clear, and
> that we should not feel obliged to make 9.1 compilable with python2.
>
Since I'm not on that list yet, one thing is for sure: there are going
to be two consecutive versions
On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 10:08:36 AM UTC-8, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> set the milestone to duplicate/invalid/wontfix
> and give it positive review, with an explanation in a comment.
>
Depending how striking the claimed bug is, it might be inspiration for a
good doctest, in which case the
On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 9:01:42 AM UTC-8, Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
>
> So here is my proposal.
>
> * Starting from now, we allow ourselves to move on, using 9.1 betas and
> further releases for external python3 updates, including switch to
> ipython7, which seems to me the most urgent mat
Okay, will do. Thanks!
On Tue 14 Jan, 2020, 11:38 PM Dima Pasechnik, wrote:
> set the milestone to duplicate/invalid/wontfix
> and give it positive review, with an explanation in a comment.
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 5:53 PM Mahathi Vempati
> wrote:
> >
> > Precisely the title.
> >
> > How do
set the milestone to duplicate/invalid/wontfix
and give it positive review, with an explanation in a comment.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 5:53 PM Mahathi Vempati wrote:
>
> Precisely the title.
>
> How do you go about closing a ticket if a described bug doesn't seem to exist
> anymore?
>
>
> --
> Yo
Precisely the title.
How do you go about closing a ticket if a described bug doesn't seem to
exist anymore?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:32 AM Travis Scrimshaw
wrote:
> So one thing I thought of that could be a problem is this:
>
> ZZ['x'] --> ZZ['x,y']['x']
>
> or more generally anytime there are repeated variable names. Actually, in
> this case, I feel the default should be to go into the base ring rat
Strong *applause* from me. (This is a very hard problem and I continue to
be amazed and greatly appreciate what everybody has done related to Python3
support in Sage!)
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 9:01 AM Frédéric Chapoton
wrote:
> This has been a long discussion already. Let me try to summarize. My
>
This has been a long discussion already. Let me try to summarize. My
question was :
*Do you agree that sage release 9.1 (and most of the 9.1.betas) will not
be kept compatible with Python 2 ?*
Some people give a more or less clear *positive* answer :
Chapoton, Bissey, Gourgoulhon, Kaufmann,
So one thing I thought of that could be a problem is this:
ZZ['x'] --> ZZ['x,y']['x']
or more generally anytime there are repeated variable names. Actually, in
this case, I feel the default should be to go into the base ring rather
than the final ring, but another option would be to just error
That worked, yes.
Thank you!
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 4:15 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:31 AM Mahathi Vempati
> wrote:
> >
> > yes, I authenticated with an ssh key.
> > Is this an authentication issue? I had assumed there was some issue with
> my code that a hook was not
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 2:31 AM Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Maybe you want
>
> sage: T(S.flattening_morphism()(f))
> a*x + b*x + a*y + b*y
>
>
> Le 14/01/2020 à 08:22, Travis Scrimshaw a écrit :
> > Hi everyone,
> > I wanted to know if this is a deliberate behavior o
On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 7:44 PM Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to suggest that the sooner we drop Python 2 support the better.
> We still need to handle the upgrade to ipython7 and the compatibility with
> python 3.8. All this will be made very difficult if we insist on main
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:31 AM Mahathi Vempati wrote:
>
> yes, I authenticated with an ssh key.
> Is this an authentication issue? I had assumed there was some issue with my
> code that a hook was not letting pass.
It seems that you never had any git branches successfully
pushed to trac.sagema
yes, I authenticated with an ssh key.
Is this an authentication issue? I had assumed there was some issue with my
code that a hook was not letting pass.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 2:44 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020, 08:58 Mahathi Vempati, wrote:
>
>> So, I committed some code
Am Montag, 13. Januar 2020 17:33:56 UTC+1 schrieb E. Madison Bray:
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 9:24 AM Antonio Rojas > wrote:
> >
> > El viernes, 10 de enero de 2020, 14:54:24 (UTC+1), E. Madison Bray
> escribió:
> >>
> >> That seems like the obvious approach to me. As it is I've long felt
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020, 08:58 Mahathi Vempati, wrote:
> So, I committed some code and was attempting to push it to the sage server
> when I got this message. How do I find what hook in remote denied my push
> and why it is being denied?
>
> ```
> remote: FATAL: W
> refs/heads/u/Tinkidinki/have_the_s
So, I committed some code and was attempting to push it to the sage server
when I got this message. How do I find what hook in remote denied my push
and why it is being denied?
```
remote: FATAL: W
refs/heads/u/Tinkidinki/have_the_sage_version_number_present_on_every_page_of_the_documentation
20 matches
Mail list logo
