[sage-devel] Re: Project: LatticeWithIsometry

Dear Dima, sorry for taking such a long time to answer your question. I'd say it could do a lot of stuff involving over and sublattices. But then it seems like Alex is counting orbits. You'd have to build on top of my code to achieve that. For my purposes it sufficed to consider a single isomet

[sage-devel] Re: Project: LatticeWithIsometry

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 11:20:55 AM UTC+2, Simon Brandhorst wrote: > > Dear all, > Dear Simon, > > I have written some code (toy implementation) in sage. It could be useful > for other people as well. > That is nice! I am sure it could be useful to other. > So now I am wondering

[sage-devel] Re: Project: LatticeWithIsometry

O.K. It seems there is some functionality for positive definite lattices in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15976 and it hides in the sage source :). However I could not find anything for Indefinite "lattices". On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 11:20:55 AM UTC+2, Simon Brandhorst wrote: > > Dea

[sage-devel] Re: Project: LatticeWithIsometry

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 9:20:55 AM UTC, Simon Brandhorst wrote: > > Dear all, > > I have written some code (toy implementation) in sage. It could be useful > for other people as well. > So now I am wondering whether I should make an effort to implement it > meeting the sage-devel stand

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

Replying to an old thread I realized I'd starred... On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 6:48 PM, kcrisman wrote: > Well, I am thankful that my rant led to some pretty substantive discussion. > Here let me summarize some thoughts. > > A) +1 to having something where a github-like editing thing works. I've >

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

You don't need to know about that particular subcommand to develop, its just a bandaid until we have a better build system. There are plenty other git concepts and subcommands that can definitely be useful in certain circumstances, but aren't really necessary to work on a ticket. On Wednesda

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:33:24 AM UTC-4, Volker Braun wrote: > > yes it is... > But it's not even in http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/git_trac.html Presumably the development of git trac should be pretty tightly connected to that document. We keep telling people to read it, after

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

yes it is... On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 1:26:02 PM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote: > > I hope no one minds my resurrecting this, but after having spent a lot of >> time waiting for Sage to rebuild itself 3 or 4 times, I just discovered >> this hint, and would like to suggest it make its way onto >> h

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

> > I hope no one minds my resurrecting this, but after having spent a lot of > time waiting for Sage to rebuild itself 3 or 4 times, I just discovered > this hint, and would like to suggest it make its way onto > http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/trac.html#section-review-patches, > and al

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

I hope no one minds my resurrecting this, but after having spent a lot of time waiting for Sage to rebuild itself 3 or 4 times, I just discovered this hint, and would like to suggest it make its way onto http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/trac.html#section-review-patches, and all other simil

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On 2014-05-31, Volker Braun wrote: > On Saturday, May 31, 2014 1:42:44 AM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> everything, as for rebuilding docs nothing short of "make distclean && >> make" works. >> > > sage -sync-build && sage -b && make doc-clean && make doc > > almost always works (there has

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:14:41 PM UTC+1, leif wrote: > > Did someone meanwhile track down what exactly went wrong / broke > docbuilding (such that it hangs)? > I can't reproduce it, works for me. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" grou

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

And which part of it being a common assumption among git users that the first merge commit points back to the branch did you not understand? On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:52:15 PM UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote: > > That's my question from last november : > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-git/Nok

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

Volker Braun wrote: On Saturday, May 31, 2014 1:42:44 AM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: everything, as for rebuilding docs nothing short of "make distclean && make" works. sage -sync-build && sage -b && make doc-clean && make doc almost always works (there has been maybe one case where

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

By the way I improved this gtmp method since, so that it prepares a commit message which makes the history clearer (at least to a human) function gtmp { cd ~/sage git checkout d rel="$(git log --oneline d ^d~1 | sed s/.*\ //g)" tn="$(echo "$1" | grep -o "[0-9]*")" echo "===

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

> There is nothing wrong with merges > > * if you need them > * if the original branch is the first parent. > > Doing it the wrong way makes the history more difficult to understand, and > we shouldn't teach or facilitate that antipattern. That's my question from last november : https://groups.goo

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

There is nothing wrong with merges * if you need them * if the original branch is the first parent. Doing it the wrong way makes the history more difficult to understand, and we shouldn't teach or facilitate that antipattern. On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:35:30 PM UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote:

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

Yo ! > If you want to edit the ticket branch (that is, add additional > commits) you cannot use `git trac try`. You must use `git trac > checkout` to get the actual ticket branch as a starting point. Why can't you add commits after a merge ? I do this all the time O_o Nathann -- You rece

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

I've implemented a version of this now. From the README: * Review tickets with minimal recompiling. This assumes that you are currently on the "develop" branch, that is, the latest beta. Just checking out an older ticket would most likely reset the Sage tree to an older version, so you would

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On Friday, May 30, 2014 5:11:08 PM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote: > Right, but the problem is that currently I am uploading it ;-) Which is exactly why it ought to be difficult to make wrong-way merges in a branch, so that you can't accidentally/misguidedly upload without understanding enough of git t

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On Saturday, May 31, 2014 1:42:44 AM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > everything, as for rebuilding docs nothing short of "make distclean && > make" works. > sage -sync-build && sage -b && make doc-clean && make doc almost always works (there has been maybe one case where it didn't, and that w

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On 2014-05-30, kcrisman wrote: > > > On Friday, May 30, 2014 2:19:24 AM UTC-4, Nathann Cohen wrote: >> >> If I understand your complaint correctly, the problem is that >>> re-compiling after switching branches is too expensive. >>> >> >> You *NEVER* need to recompile everything when switching br

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On 2014-05-30, Nathann Cohen wrote: > >> >> If I understand your complaint correctly, the problem is that >> re-compiling after switching branches is too expensive. >> > > You *NEVER* need to recompile everything when switching branches. There is > a trick : you should never checkout a branch b

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

Just got a Github Education account today for my lab, which led me to look a bit more at their site. This video is relevant: https://education.github.com/stories#UCBerkeley > If extra eyes were all that were necessary, there would be no long-standing mathematical conjectures. What is needed is bot

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

> > Hmm, I was kind of going on the "avoid unnecessary merges" thing. >> > > You can of course do whatever you want on your computer as long as you > don't upload it... > > Right, but the problem is that currently I am uploading it ;-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On Friday, May 30, 2014 1:18:43 PM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote: > > Hmm, I was kind of going on the "avoid unnecessary merges" thing. > You can of course do whatever you want on your computer as long as you don't upload it... Also I am scared about merge conflicts, which I do not know how to handle

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On Friday, May 30, 2014 2:19:24 AM UTC-4, Nathann Cohen wrote: > > If I understand your complaint correctly, the problem is that >> re-compiling after switching branches is too expensive. >> > > You *NEVER* need to recompile everything when switching branches. There is > a trick : you should n

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

> > If I understand your complaint correctly, the problem is that > re-compiling after switching branches is too expensive. > You *NEVER* need to recompile everything when switching branches. There is a trick : you should never checkout a branch but instead pull it (merge it) with your curren

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

Well, I am thankful that my rant led to some pretty substantive discussion. Here let me summarize some thoughts. A) +1 to having something where a github-like editing thing works. I've used this at least once with matplotlib. My beef with github is orthogonal to the web interface piece. If

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: >I never really have had a problem with the new workflow (in fact, I > actually prefer it to the old one). However I had a good command of git > coming into this and read the "git the hard way". So my 2 cents would be to > have develope

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:37 AM, William Stein wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:01 AM, kcrisman wrote: >> Please excuse the following rant. As usual, it is ill-informed, and if some > > I appreciate it, and I'm glad we're having this discussion. (It's a > rant, but it isn't a flame. Yeah!)

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 2:22 PM, leif wrote: > kcrisman wrote: >> >> >> Git workflow. >> >> The goal was to reduce work for some developers and make things more >> modular, but in fact what happens is that people are basing their >> "branches" on all kinds of different starting points, forcing co

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

kcrisman wrote: Git workflow. The goal was to reduce work for some developers and make things more modular, but in fact what happens is that people are basing their "branches" on all kinds of different starting points, forcing constant recompilation for even the most trivial changes. [...]

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

Robert Bradshaw wrote: [...] now that we're on git a pull request is 99% of what a ticket is I'm happy that this (still) is *not* the case (for most tickets at least). (specifically, an annotated point to a particular git branch/commit that needs review) and we should seriously consider accep

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On 29 May 2014 20:50, Volker Braun wrote: > On Thursday, May 29, 2014 8:29:04 PM UTC+1, John Cremona wrote: >> >> Can someone point me to instructions for how to install (and use) "git >> trac"? > > > The developer guide on a sufficiently recent (6.2+) Sage version. > > On a related note, the docs

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 8:29:04 PM UTC+1, John Cremona wrote: > > Can someone point me to instructions for how to install (and use) "git > trac"? The developer guide on a sufficiently recent (6.2+) Sage version. On a related note, the docs on the web page are still from 6.1.1 -- You rece

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On 2014-05-29, John Cremona wrote: > On 29 May 2014 20:22, Simon King wrote: >> Hi Volker, >> >> On 2014-05-29, Volker Braun wrote: >>> code: How can I easily find that discussion? >>> >>> Pretty easy, I would say: "git trac find ". >> >> Wow! That is in fact very useful. Didn't know about

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On 29 May 2014 20:22, Simon King wrote: > Hi Volker, > > On 2014-05-29, Volker Braun wrote: >> code: How can I easily find that discussion? >>> >> >> Pretty easy, I would say: "git trac find ". > > Wow! That is in fact very useful. Didn't know about this. So far, I was > mainly using the dev scri

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

Hi Volker, On 2014-05-29, Volker Braun wrote: > code: How can I easily find that discussion? >> > > Pretty easy, I would say: "git trac find ". Wow! That is in fact very useful. Didn't know about this. So far, I was mainly using the dev scripts, and "git trac" only once, I think. Cheers, Simon

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 7:26:35 PM UTC+1, Simon King wrote: > > Before switching to git, we had the policy (enforced by commit hooks, if > I recall correctly) that the commit message mentions the ticket number. No, that was Jeroen manually (ok, with a script) telling you days/weeks/months lat

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

Hi Volker, On 2014-05-29, Volker Braun wrote: >> : where that is, one cannot learn easily from git log, since >> $ git log | grep maxima | less >> $ git log | grep Maxima | less >> > > The git log is not a plain text file, its a directed acyclic graph. There > is much more useful information in

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 7:00:52 PM UTC+1, William wrote: > > The argument that mailing patches "doesn't work at that scale" isn't > convincing, since Linux kernel development is much bigger than Sage > development, and they mail patches around That is not really true. They do mail patches aro

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Volker Braun wrote: > On Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:01:24 PM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote: >> >> As another example, in attempting to review one patch which relies upon >> the new Maxima update > > > The git branch contains the entire code, so automatically has all > requi

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:01:24 PM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote: > As another example, in attempting to review one patch which relies upon > the new Maxima update > The git branch contains the entire code, so automatically has all requirements. You don't need to know where the maxima update comes fr

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:01 AM, kcrisman wrote: > Please excuse the following rant. As usual, it is ill-informed, and if some I appreciate it, and I'm glad we're having this discussion. (It's a rant, but it isn't a flame. Yeah!) > of the points are due to ignorance, I have no problem with th

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

I never really have had a problem with the new workflow (in fact, I actually prefer it to the old one). However I had a good command of git coming into this and read the "git the hard way". So my 2 cents would be to have developers spend time learning git properly instead of using the dev sc

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

Please excuse the following rant. As usual, it is ill-informed, and if some of the points are due to ignorance, I have no problem with that being pointed out. But from reading the lists, I'm not the only one experiencing difficulty with this sort of thing. At the very least I think it shows

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:49 AM, kcrisman wrote: > Hi! Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. I see two different issues > arising in this thread. > > 1) Your desire to have a MOOC teaching Python programming around some > mathematics, which might end up contributing to Sage. (Or sympy, or

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

Hi! Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. I see two different issues arising in this thread. 1) Your desire to have a MOOC teaching Python programming around some mathematics, which might end up contributing to Sage. (Or sympy, or numpy, or Gambit, or ...) That sounds awesome. I thi

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. It's a fine line between being critical of the idea and dismissive of the students. Please everyone limit yourselves to criticizing the idea, as students might come to this thread later. I don't think one should dismiss the students. Look at the Mathworks competit

[sage-devel] Re: Project: add hundreds of contributors to sage

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:31:08 PM UTC-7, Paul-Olivier Dehaye wrote: > > Again, in the big wave of emails, this one also got misdirected: > > Hi everyone, > > I am looking for people who want to help me, in one way or another, bring > hundreds of new first time contributors to sage. If I do

[sage-devel] Re: project web servers

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Georg S. Weber wrote: > > > > On 17 Feb., 20:04, William Stein wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Timothy Clemans >> >> wrote: >> >> > planet.sagemath.org point's to William's homepage >> >> This should now be fixed. Let me know if you see any other pr

[sage-devel] Re: project web servers

On 17 Feb., 20:04, William Stein wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Timothy Clemans > > wrote: > > > planet.sagemath.org point's to William's homepage > > This should now be fixed.  Let me know if you see any other problems. > > William Hi William, the link I used to access trac is cu

[sage-devel] Re: project web servers

> Please check that it works now. > > http://m4ri.sagemath.org/ > > Also, please check that you can login to boxen.math and from there do > > ssh m...@sagemath > > so you can login to the m4ri account and edit the website. > You can add ssh keys for anybody else who should edit > the website.

[sage-devel] Re: project web servers

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Timothy Clemans wrote: > > planet.sagemath.org point's to William's homepage This should now be fixed. Let me know if you see any other problems. William --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@goog

[sage-devel] Re: project web servers

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:53 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote: > > On Tuesday 17 February 2009, William Stein wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I had to migrate all the cython, Sage and mpir websites and related >> servers to another machine, due to some hardware failures on the >> server that was hosting them.Pl

[sage-devel] Re: project web servers

On Feb 17, 9:02 am, Timothy Clemans wrote: > planet.sagemath.org point's to William's homepage Yep, Harald already mentioned that off-list yesterday and there was some talk to resurrect the planet with nicer skinning, etc. soon. Thanks for reporting it again :) Cheers, Michael --~--~---

[sage-devel] Re: project web servers

planet.sagemath.org point's to William's homepage On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote: > > On Tuesday 17 February 2009, William Stein wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I had to migrate all the cython, Sage and mpir websites and related >> servers to another machine, due to some hardware fai

[sage-devel] Re: project web servers

On Tuesday 17 February 2009, William Stein wrote: > Hi, > > I had to migrate all the cython, Sage and mpir websites and related > servers to another machine, due to some hardware failures on the > server that was hosting them.Please let me know if any of the > cython, Sage, or MPIR websites ar

[sage-devel] Re: project web servers

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:45 PM, mabshoff wrote: > > > > On Feb 16, 9:25 pm, William Stein wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I had to migrate all the cython, Sage and mpir websites and related >> servers to another machine, due to some hardware failures on the >> server that was hosting them.Please let me

[sage-devel] Re: project web servers

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:45 PM, mabshoff wrote: > > > > On Feb 16, 9:25 pm, William Stein wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I had to migrate all the cython, Sage and mpir websites and related >> servers to another machine, due to some hardware failures on the >> server that was hosting them.Please let me

[sage-devel] Re: project web servers

On Feb 16, 9:25 pm, William Stein wrote: > Hi, > > I had to migrate all the cython, Sage and mpir websites and related > servers to another machine, due to some hardware failures on the > server that was hosting them.    Please let me know if any of the > cython, Sage, or MPIR websites are sudd

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Apr 23, 1:58 am, "Gabriel Dos Reis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:50 PM, mabshoff > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >  I don't want this discussion to go out of hand [too late], but > >  ultimately this is all about what is best for the Sage project. And my > >  opin

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:50 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't want this discussion to go out of hand [too late], but > ultimately this is all about what is best for the Sage project. And my > opinion there counts a whole lot more in that regard than yours, just > as my opin

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Apr 23, 2:08 am, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Tim, > >I feel that I have done more than a reasonable amount of work here. Do > >you agree or disagree? > > Have you done a reasonable amount of work? That's for you to judge > since you're the person with the need. > > But lets see what se

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:42 AM, William Stein wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Bill Page wrote: > ... > > I should also admit that most of my rant in the previous email > > was in fact a prelude to asking William to try to intervene with > > NAG on our behalf precisely become

[sage-devel] Re: Project

>I feel that I have done more than a reasonable amount of work here. Do >you agree or disagree? Have you done a reasonable amount of work? That's for you to judge since you're the person with the need. But lets see what seems to be going on with Clisp. Sam's reply to you seems to be that you ne

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:25 PM, mabshoff wrote: > > > > I googled for it and it seems lenny is using 2.6.7 while sid is using > > 2.6.7-36.1. So I might have gotten my wires crossed with unstable > > here. So my ba

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:25 PM, mabshoff wrote: > > I googled for it and it seems lenny is using 2.6.7 while sid is using > 2.6.7-36.1. So I might have gotten my wires crossed with unstable > here. So my bad. Beware of the release numbering. The most recent reference I could find is: http://

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Apr 22, 11:25 pm, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Tim, > >. > >                          If the lisp community were alive and well > >their tools would be alive and well. That is clearly not the case of > >gcl and clisp certainly has some serious issues to deal with with > >newer gcc r

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:25 PM, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know you don't care about lisp and that's fine. And I know you've > encountered problems with lisp builds. And we both know that when > someone encounters problems with open source tools it is expected > behavior to post bug

[sage-devel] Re: Project

>. > If the lisp community were alive and well >their tools would be alive and well. That is clearly not the case of >gcl and clisp certainly has some serious issues to deal with with >newer gcc releases as well as compilers not gcc. > I'm also on the clisp mailing li

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Apr 22, 4:35 pm, Robert Dodier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > mabshoff wrote: Hi Robert, > > Well, since the Maxima folks now have told us that they will support > > ecls soon the decision has been made on our end to switch to Maxima > > +ecls. > > Michael, I don't mean to rain on the parade, b

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Apr 22, 3:50 pm, "Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael, Hi Bill, > >  At least testing ships CVS head. > > Are you sure? I suppose that we had better check with Camm. I googled for it and it seems lenny is using 2.6.7 while sid is using 2.6.7-36.1. So I might have gotten my wire

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Robert Dodier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There is no point in beating the dead horse that is gcl. > > It has been proposed more than once on the Maxima mailing > list to drop GCL. The main issue is that GCL runs on Windows > and some other Lisps of interes

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Michael, > > Wow, it sure it nice to have someone on the "other end of the phone", > so as to speak ... :-) I think it is really great that Google came > through with financial support that is making it possible for you

[sage-devel] Re: Project

mabshoff wrote: > Well, since the Maxima folks now have told us that they will support > ecls soon the decision has been made on our end to switch to Maxima > +ecls. Michael, I don't mean to rain on the parade, but: I personally am willing to try to resolve the problems compiling Maxima with ECL

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:12 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:32 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:39 AM, mabshoff > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 9:15 am, "

[sage-devel] Re: Project

Michael, Wow, it sure it nice to have someone on the "other end of the phone", so as to speak ... :-) I think it is really great that Google came through with financial support that is making it possible for you and others to dedicate so much time to this. On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:41 AM, mabsho

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:32 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:39 AM, mabshoff > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 9:15 am, "Alfredo Portes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:41 AM, mabshoff > > > >

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:39 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Apr 22, 9:15 am, "Alfredo Portes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:41 AM, mabshoff > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Hi, > > > > > Well, I think NAG chose the "non-commercial only" license on p

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The most recent branch 'Version_2_6_8pre' is what we normally use to > build Axiom. There is a change about 4 months old. If I recall > correctly 'Version_2_6_8pre' actually corresponds to the version > distributed on De

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:39 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I don't think the situation is comparable. TrollTech understood > Open Source way back. Axiom was released under BSD, so why the > different treatment for Aldor? Sorry if it sounded like a troll. Tim and others can e

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Apr 22, 9:15 am, "Alfredo Portes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:41 AM, mabshoff > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi, > >  Well, I think NAG chose the "non-commercial only" license on purpose. > >  We have discussed the issue here before and everybody agrees that it > >  is GPL

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:41 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Well, I think NAG chose the "non-commercial only" license on purpose. > We have discussed the issue here before and everybody agrees that it > is GPL incompatible. But I have little hope that Sage's potential > interest in Aldor w

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Apr 22, 7:36 am, "Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:03 AM, William Stein wrote: Hello folks, > > ... > >  In the defense of GCL, *most* components of Sage were a mess gcl is in way more of a mess than any other component in Sage I can imagine. But then I wasn'

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:03 AM, William Stein wrote: > ... > In the defense of GCL, *most* components of Sage were a mess > like above when I/you/whoever first tried to add them to Sage. > I personally haven't tried much using cvs GCL only, partly because > it scares me to use cvs for a deplo

[sage-devel] Re: Project

Thank you very much for agreeing to work on this Michael. Way down the road, thin will be a big deal i think. On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:45 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > William suggested I forward/post the stuff I wrote on fricas-devel > over there, too. Since his wish is my comma

[sage-devel] Re: Project

William suggested I forward/post the stuff I wrote on fricas-devel over there, too. Since his wish is my command ;) here we go: On Apr 21, 9:46 pm, Robert Dodier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 20, 9:29 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello folks, > > c) ecls: the ray of hop

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Apr 21, 11:48 pm, Robert Dodier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 20, 5:55 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Robert, > dortmund.de> wrote: > > I forgot one important argument here: With ecls you can embed the lisp > > interpreter into an external library, hence we would be able to use >

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Apr 20, 5:55 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED] dortmund.de> wrote: > I forgot one important argument here: With ecls you can embed the lisp > interpreter into an external library, hence we would be able to use > Maxima as a library instead of using the inefficient pexpect > interface. I am not s

[sage-devel] Re: Project

>> Having spent a fair portion of my life porting software, I understand >> the frustrations you feel. And having spent the bulk of my life using >> Lisp I "get" the get-rid-of-lisp pushback. But a lot of astonishingly >> good computer algebra exists in lisp (we won't discuss the reasons). >> Repr

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Apr 21, 6:09 pm, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Tim, > > The GCL-devel mailing list has on average about 5-6 messages a month > > during the last couple of months, except for a bunch of messages in > > January about people trying to build GCL from cvs. > > You claim that you pass prob

[sage-devel] Re: Project

I get the following error: ;; Compiling ../lsp/gcl_listlib.lsp. ;; End of Pass 1. ;; End of Pass 2. ;; OPTIMIZE levels: Safety=3, Space=0, Speed=3, (Debug quality ignored) ;; Finished compiling ../lsp/gcl_listlib.o. ;; Loading /opt/sage-3.0.alpha6/spkg/build/gcl-20080421/src/lsp/gcl_listlib.o __s

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:09 AM, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > GCL runs on windows although I have not spent any time on a > windows port. Waldek has, so he might have an opinion. Well, *I* spend considerable time making Axiom buildable on Windows back when I was working on Axiom.build-im

[sage-devel] Re: Project

>> I think you'd feel the same frustrations with Python if you compiled >> Python from scratch for every platform. You ship "sources" but assume >> that the python language exists and is compatible, which is not likely >> to be the case when 3.0 arrives. If you can assume the python >> language,

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:09 AM, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >For example, is the fact that GCL doesn't build for us anywhere, something > >that you think we'll get passed by just trying harder? Or is it going > >to be really really hard. > >

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Apr 21, 2008, at 12:09 PM, root wrote: > I think you'd feel the same frustrations with Python if you compiled > Python from scratch for every platform. You ship "sources" but assume > that the python language exists and is compatible, which is not likely > to be the case when 3.0 arrives. If

[sage-devel] Re: Project

>For example, is the fact that GCL doesn't build for us anywhere, something >that you think we'll get passed by just trying harder? Or is it going >to be really really hard. All versions are built with GCL. I do not have access to a

[sage-devel] Re: Project

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:41 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Apr 21, 7:33 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > dortmund.de> wrote: > > On Apr 21, 6:48 am, "Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 7:22 PM, mabshoff wrote: > > > > > > > GC

  1   2   >