On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> First thing: Robert, thanks so much for the buildbot. You are saving
> all of us hours and hours of work!
You're welcome. Saves me time too :).
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 03:12:48PM -0500, Jason Bandlow wrote:
>> Huge +1
On Jan 21, 3:30 am, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> First thing: Robert, thanks so much for the buildbot. You are saving
> all of us hours and hours of work!
>
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 03:12:48PM -0500, Jason Bandlow wrote:
> > Huge +1 to this. Thank you very much for putting this
Hi!
First thing: Robert, thanks so much for the buildbot. You are saving
all of us hours and hours of work!
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 03:12:48PM -0500, Jason Bandlow wrote:
> Huge +1 to this. Thank you very much for putting this together! And I
> like your (initial?) solution to the probl
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Niles wrote:
>
>> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Robert Bradshaw
>> > > Apply foo.pyx, foo2.pyx
>>
>> > I mean of course foo.patch, foo2.patch :).
>>
>> > > This will "reset" the patch list at that point, any added patches will
>> > > get (semi-intellegently
> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Robert Bradshaw
> > > Apply foo.pyx, foo2.pyx
>
> > I mean of course foo.patch, foo2.patch :).
>
> > > This will "reset" the patch list at that point, any added patches will
> > > get (semi-intellegently) appended to the list.
>
> > > This will help reviewer
On 3 dic, 20:49, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Robert Bradshaw
> > Apply foo.pyx, foo2.pyx
>
> I mean of course foo.patch, foo2.patch :).
>
> > This will "reset" the patch list at that point, any added patches will
> > get (semi-intellegently) appended to the list.
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Jason Bandlow wrote:
> (cc'ing the sage-combinat folks who may not have seen this)
>
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On this note: http://sage.math.washington.edu:21100/ticket/
>
>>> It has some heuristics, but it's far from perfect. As people learn the
>>> conventions
(cc'ing the sage-combinat folks who may not have seen this)
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On this note: http://sage.math.washington.edu:21100/ticket/
>> It has some heuristics, but it's far from perfect. As people learn the
>> conventions of the buildbot, and the buildbot learns the conventions
>> of
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:14 AM, luisfe wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 3, 7:54 pm, Niles wrote:
>>> A couple of the patches I've been working on are failing the new
>>> automatic testing because some ticket attachments are being applied
>>> that sho
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:14 AM, luisfe wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 7:54 pm, Niles wrote:
>> A couple of the patches I've been working on are failing the new
>> automatic testing because some ticket attachments are being applied
>> that shouldn't be -- is there a way to fix this myself without
>> becomi
On Dec 3, 7:54 pm, Niles wrote:
> A couple of the patches I've been working on are failing the new
> automatic testing because some ticket attachments are being applied
> that shouldn't be -- is there a way to fix this myself without
> becoming a trac administrator?
+1 to this, that happens in m
A couple of the patches I've been working on are failing the new
automatic testing because some ticket attachments are being applied
that shouldn't be -- is there a way to fix this myself without
becoming a trac administrator?
For example:
http://sage.math.washington.edu:21100/ticket/1956/
The a
On Dec 3, 11:37 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:47 AM, David Roe wrote:
> > That's awesome. This will make me far more likely to review tickets.
>
> Me too. And I hope for many others out there. We've needed something
> like this for a long time.
!!!
--
To post to thi
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:47 AM, David Roe wrote:
> That's awesome. This will make me far more likely to review tickets.
Me too. And I hope for many others out there. We've needed something
like this for a long time.
- Robert
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:05 AM, David Roe wrote:
> import re
> def concise_log(long_log_name, concise_log_name):
> with open(long_log_name) as long_log:
> log = long_log.read()
> p = "The following tests
> failed:\\n\\n(.*)\\n---
Here's a suggestion:
Make a "concise log" that's loadable in a browser in a small amount of time
(the current log files are too long to be easily readable in Firefox for
me). For example:
import re
def concise_log(long_log_name, concise_log_name):
with open(long_log_name) as long_log:
That's awesome. This will make me far more likely to review tickets.
David
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 04:08, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:00 PM, kcrisman wrote:
> >
> >> > I completely agree. And with quick, automated feedback they can go and
> >> > take care of anything they m
On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 at 06:28PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On this note: http://sage.math.washington.edu:21100/ticket/
Oooh, that's cool. I like the links on trac. Now I need to go and fix my
patches that don't apply any more.
Dan
--
--- Dan Drake
- http://mathsci.kaist.ac.kr/~drake
--
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:32 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 2, 10:08 pm, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:00 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>>
>> >> > I completely agree. And with quick, automated feedback they can go and
>> >> > take care of anything they missed rather than wait two w
On Dec 2, 10:08 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:00 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> >> > I completely agree. And with quick, automated feedback they can go and
> >> > take care of anything they missed rather than wait two weeks and a
> >> > release cycle later to see that some corn
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:00 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>> > I completely agree. And with quick, automated feedback they can go and
>> > take care of anything they missed rather than wait two weeks and a
>> > release cycle later to see that some corner case was missed that
>> > affected a doctest far aw
> > I completely agree. And with quick, automated feedback they can go and
> > take care of anything they missed rather than wait two weeks and a
> > release cycle later to see that some corner case was missed that
> > affected a doctest far away and now they need a tiny fix + rebase +
> > context
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:28 PM, pang wrote:
>>> On 1 dic, 17:40, David Kirkby wrote:
. But for someone that regularly submits tickets, if they can't be bothered
to test them
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:28 PM, pang wrote:
>> On 1 dic, 17:40, David Kirkby wrote:
>>>. But for someone that regularly submits tickets, if they can't be bothered
>>> to test them, then I'm personally not going to spend much time on a ticket
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:28 PM, pang wrote:
> On 1 dic, 17:40, David Kirkby wrote:
>>. But for someone that regularly submits tickets, if they can't be bothered
>> to test them, then I'm personally not going to spend much time on a ticket.
>
> ok, we got each other wrong. The way I understood Ro
On 1 dic, 17:40, David Kirkby wrote:
>. But for someone that regularly submits tickets, if they can't be bothered
> to test them, then I'm personally not going to spend much time on a ticket.
ok, we got each other wrong. The way I understood Robert Bradshaw's
comment is: "the reviewer should spe
On 1 December 2010 15:47, pang wrote:
> On 1 dic, 14:56, David Kirkby wrote:
>
>> What has notation got to do with my analogy.? It's the correctness
>> that matters.
>
> For a paper, it is. I would never argue with an author about the
> particular notation she uses in a paper, provided it is con
On 1 dic, 14:56, David Kirkby wrote:
> What has notation got to do with my analogy.? It's the correctness
> that matters.
For a paper, it is. I would never argue with an author about the
particular notation she uses in a paper, provided it is consistent,
but for a ticket, notation (syntax) is v
On 1 December 2010 13:37, pang wrote:
> On 1 dic, 13:59, David Kirkby wrote:
>> Why should I waste my time checking the validity of code that the
>> author can't be bothered to check actually works?
>>
>> I feel it's the responsibility of the author to check the code works,
>> not the reviewer.
>
On 1 dic, 13:59, David Kirkby wrote:
> Why should I waste my time checking the validity of code that the
> author can't be bothered to check actually works?
>
> I feel it's the responsibility of the author to check the code works,
> not the reviewer.
>
> If you submitted a proof to a maths journal
On 1 December 2010 11:36, pang wrote:
> On 30 nov, 20:50, Robert Bradshaw
>
>> +1. I have the feeling that people are doing more testing than reading
>> of code, which is omitting the most important step, and in particular
>> the one that only a human can do. Testing should happen orthogonal to
>>
On 30 nov, 20:50, Robert Bradshaw
> +1. I have the feeling that people are doing more testing than reading
> of code, which is omitting the most important step, and in particular
> the one that only a human can do. Testing should happen orthogonal to
> someone reading the code and giving it a posi
Thanks to everyone for their suggestions! I'll try to implement (or
start implementing) them soon.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group a
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:23 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 30 November 2010 10:48, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>> On 2010-11-30 00:55, Volker Braun wrote:
>>> nobody wants to give a positive review until it has been tried on all
>>> platforms
>>
>> I think "testing on every platform" is not a necessary
Its true that backward compatibility is not one of the goals of
Fedora, but rather testing new AND existing code. But the two problems
that prevent Sage from building on Fedora 14 affect everyone: mpir has
a security issue and ecl/maxima contain invalid code that just happens
to compile on older gc
On 30 November 2010 09:41, Volker Braun wrote:
> Meanwhile, Sage still fails to build on Fedora, one of the most
> popular linux distributions, because the ecl/maxima update is stuck in
> limbo (http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10187).
That's not entirely true. The latest "stabe" Sage i
On 30 November 2010 10:48, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2010-11-30 00:55, Volker Braun wrote:
>> nobody wants to give a positive review until it has been tried on all
>> platforms
>
> I think "testing on every platform" is not a necessary condition for a
> ticket to receive positive_review. For rev
On 2010-11-30 00:55, Volker Braun wrote:
> nobody wants to give a positive review until it has been tried on all
> platforms
I think "testing on every platform" is not a necessary condition for a
ticket to receive positive_review. For reviewing a ticket, I think that
looking at the code is far mo
Well fortunately there are exceptions to the rule, otherwise we would
never update any spkg :-)
Meanwhile, Sage still fails to build on Fedora, one of the most
popular linux distributions, because the ecl/maxima update is stuck in
limbo (http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10187).
On Nov
On 2010-11-30 00:55, Volker Braun wrote:
> the release manager will not run in on the build bot
> until it has been positively reviewed...
False. There are 4 spkgs in sage-4.6.1.alpha2 in the needs_review
status (two of them now have a positive_review, cvxopt (#6456) and
readline (#9523) remain to
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
> Being able to test a single spkg on the most recent alpha/beta/rc
> would be very useful and not produce much load. I take it that this in
> not possible right now, but could probably be done easily.
>
> I find the current spkg review process
Being able to test a single spkg on the most recent alpha/beta/rc
would be very useful and not produce much load. I take it that this in
not possible right now, but could probably be done easily.
I find the current spkg review process is essentially a catch-22:
nobody wants to give a positive revi
On 29 November 2010 13:09, Volker Braun wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> I would be interested in using the buildbot occasionally, but I don't
> know how to start a new build. Did you document the necessary steps
> somewhere?
>
> Best wishes,
> Volker
I did not set the buildbot up, so have not documented it
Hi Dave,
I would be interested in using the buildbot occasionally, but I don't
know how to start a new build. Did you document the necessary steps
somewhere?
Best wishes,
Volker
On Nov 29, 1:59 pm, David Kirkby wrote:
> The addition of the buildbot to Sage should be a good thing. But it
> seem
44 matches
Mail list logo
