Hi,
I guess you have not uploaded your code changes to a fork on GitHub yet?
Otherwise, it should propose the correct branches automatically.
We have a developer guide https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/ that
should explain how to contribute to SageMath. If you need any help with
that
Hi Martin,
On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 4:50:28 PM UTC+2 axio...@yahoo.de wrote:
Does somebody have an old version of sage, so we can see whether this is a
regression?
Versions 9.5 - 10.4 produce the output you posted. Versions 9.0 - 9.4 take
about 6 minutes and produce "1". Versions 7.0 -
You also mentioned the PR in your quote. I just wanted to clarify that the
PR itself is not approved. I am glad that we agree on this :)
julian
On Tuesday, August 20, 2024 at 8:03:59 PM UTC+3 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 20, 2024 at 9:02:14 AM UTC-7 julian...@fsfe.org wr
I consider this approved.
While I don't think I would be opposed to the proposal here, I believe that
our policy says that for a disputed PR to be "approved," a vote needs to
happen here or on the PR.
The implementation of the binary wheel infrastructure in
https://github.com/sagemath/sa
implies that "disputed" label is only for a PR that has positive review
from a reviewer but another still objects it. I think adding "disputed"
label prematurely is not appropriate. Then who can remove the "disputed"
label in this case?
That's not how I interpret the policy we have. I think
Hi Salvatore,
I couldn't reproduce the problem that you are seeing.
sage: R. = ZZ[]
sage: D = {R.random_element(): ZZ.random_element() for _ in range(2**18)}
sage: save(D, 'deleteme')
The above uses a bit of RAM but not the amounts that you are seeing.
Usually, I use memray to debug such proble
I vote for (A1) and no other option.
(I don't see enough added value of these labels and I think that any *list
approach is going to be a too obscure feature to warrant the extra effort
of maintaining it.)
On Thursday, June 13, 2024 at 6:27:46 AM UTC+3 tcsc...@gmail.com wrote:
> PR labels are
I granted "write" permissions to you. That seems to be the required
permission to approve workflow runs.
Can you check that it works now?
julian
PS: If this should be done differently, please let me know and I'll revoke
that permission again :)
On Tuesday, May 14, 2024 at 11:55:53 PM UTC+3 ax
Dear Matthias,
If I read your proposal correctly, it is about removing review from changes
made by "maintainers" and merging things directly into develop without
waiting for the Release Manager.
Mostly, I am opposed to this because changes to the files you list are not
automatically uncontrove
Hi Matthias,
It was a bit unclear to me how your v2 proposal is different from the
initial proposal on this sage-devel thread. Maybe it's helpful to clarify
that build/bin/write-dockerfile.sh was removed from the proposal and
src/doc/en/developer/portability_platform_table.rst was added. Otherw
+1
--
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-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/m
On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 8:14:44 PM UTC+3 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
I do understand that the new committee is still learning how to recognize
and handle abuse; it's a complicated and challenging topic to master. In
the meantime, as I have asked the committee in private already, more
thought
Dear Martin,
I don't know much about this area but I don't think construction() is
always implemented like that. For example FreeAlgebra(QQ,
2).tensor(FreeAlgebra(QQ, 2)).construction() returns a functor and two
arguments.
As a default implementation in the category this might still well work f
Thanks a lot for this really quick fix Dima. I gave it positive review
already.
On Friday, April 12, 2024 at 4:27:31 PM UTC+3 Georgi Guninski wrote:
My results differ. If you want more systematic approach for QA and security
(the recent paranoia induced by the xz backdoor) you will need moderat
I guess the idea is that further down on this page, you are told to follow
the instructions in the README here
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/#readme which in turn tells you get the
"sources" from here https://www.sagemath.org/download-source.html.
I agree that this is not terribly intuitive,
Hi Martin,
On Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 3:17:19 PM UTC+3 Martin R wrote:
I tried all day to make sense of the element_constructor of the
InfinitePolynomialRIng (which uses sage_eval to interpret the repr), but I
failed.
That string eval is quite curious. I have no clue why it's necessary.
Ho
Matthias,
We have carefully reviewed the arguments people have brought for and
against the disputed PRs and find it credible that both sides have genuine
concerns. We therefore disagree with characterizing opposing opinions as
“artificial friction”, “hostile demands”, or an “attempt to sabotage
+1
On Thursday, March 21, 2024 at 10:44:50 PM UTC+2 David Joyner wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:51 PM John H Palmieri
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Sage community,
>>
>> As announced at
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/Xf6dbPLmKPY/m/p88auKlBAwAJ, I
>> propose some changes to the C
ay, May 11, 2023 at 4:29:31 PM UTC+3 julian...@fsfe.org wrote:
> Sorry, I didn't see this thread.
>
> I do have the credentials for docker hub. I am happy to share them with
> anybody who wants to help with maintaining the docker images. (I don't use
> the docker image
Sorry, I didn't see this thread.
I do have the credentials for docker hub. I am happy to share them with
anybody who wants to help with maintaining the docker images. (I don't use
the docker images anymore myself so I do not really maintain them anymore.
Also, the automatic infrastructure that
Sure, we can try with actions first. It does not change the implementation
of the bot much, just makes persisting the bot's state a bit more
complicated. (But that problem has been solved before by others.)
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 11:00:14 PM UTC+2 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> I think curr
+1 for GitHub
--
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-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.goo
This is now https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34241.
The build scripts have probably changed in recent versions and now the
sagemath-dev lacks some essential timestamped file.
On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 8:39:09 PM UTC+5:30 vdelecroix wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> When running
>
> $ docker run -it sa
Hi Vincent and Matthias,
I also think that we should migrate away from the moin moin wiki.
On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 6:42:58 PM UTC+2 vdelecroix wrote:
> Migrating the wiki as you propose
> will make it harder to leave trac.
>
I don't think that's true. Migrating the wiki elsewhere is t
Monday, February 7, 2022 at 10:57:45 AM UTC-5 Sébastien Labbé wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:09 AM UTC+1 julian...@fsfe.org
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sébastien,
>>
>> unfortunately neither 9.1 nor 9.2 build on my machine. I had to update
>> the ba
Hi Samuel,
This is a popular pure Python package. It seems to have a history of
non-breaking releases, so I would not mind adding it if it makes our lives
much easier (and keeps us from reinventing the wheel when implementing
algorithms.) As a maintainer of SageMath in conda-forge, I don't mind
nt to discuss this further.
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 1:24:28 PM UTC-6 julian...@fsfe.org wrote:
> Hi Sébastien,
>
> glad to hear that the 9.3 and 9.4 images work.
>
> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:21:07 AM UTC-6 Sébastien Labbé wrote:
>
>> Would you also be able to
Hi Sébastien,
glad to hear that the 9.3 and 9.4 images work.
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:21:07 AM UTC-6 Sébastien Labbé wrote:
> Would you also be able to create an image for sagemath-9.2 ? That would be
> awesome! The most recent version in the 9.2 series available on docker is
> 9.2.be
>> On Saturday, 4 December 2021 at 18:08:19 UTC+1 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> One way or another, it's probably a good idea to run the builder on GH
>>>> Actions - translating one yml to another should be doable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
Hi Maarten,
thanks for verifying that the Dockerfile still works.
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:06:30 PM UTC-6 maarten...@navara.nl
wrote:
> In the meantime I managed to verify that aside from the gitlab CI/CD there
> are no other things that are broken. Meaning that I managed to build t
Hi Maarten,
On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 11:07:29 AM UTC-6 m.derick...@gmail.com
wrote:
> So I am wondering, is gitlab being phased out/abandoned, or do we still
support it and do we just need to show it some love?
I set up much of the things on GitLab initially, in the hope that it could
Hi Dima and Abhishek.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 12:44:33 PM UTC+2 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 9:37 AM Abhishek cherath
> wrote:
>
> > For some reason the CI build for 9.2 release seems to have failed, so
> the docker sagemath/sagemath:latest image is of 9.1. Any hel
Hi Dima,
the patching that fails is only meant to make the docker image work in a
local developer setup where you have your sage source tree (with changes
and untracked files) mounted into the docker container. In the CI context
the line that reads `git status --porcelain` in the Dockerfile sho
Hi Frédéric,
docker pull source-clean is expected to fail. We should probably add a
message there that explains that. It says `docker pul ... || true` in the
script there.
On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 1:52:48 PM UTC+1 Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
> Build failure comes from not being able to pull
34 matches
Mail list logo
