On Sep 30, 2:06 am, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/9/26 mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 4:20 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> The only file directly touching that file is alpha1/trac_4175-no-
> >> impl.patch. It looks harmless, i.e. turni
2008/9/26 mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> On Sep 25, 4:20 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> The only file directly touching that file is alpha1/trac_4175-no-
>> impl.patch. It looks harmless, i.e. turning a bunch of cdef into cpdef
>> functions. So this must be somewhat deepe
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 4:20 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sep 25, 4:13 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 4:10 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:40 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
On Sep 25, 4:20 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only file directly touching that file is alpha1/trac_4175-no-
> impl.patch. It looks harmless, i.e. turning a bunch of cdef into cpdef
> functions. So this must be somewhat deeper.
Check out alpha1/trac_3897_patch_1_residue-fields
On Sep 25, 4:13 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 4:10 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:40 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Yes, that is really the odd thing. IIRC last time we fixed this we
> >> turn
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 4:10 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:40 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 25, 2:39 pm, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On 25-Sep-08, at 2:36 PM, John Cremona wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > 200
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:40 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sep 25, 2:39 pm, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 25-Sep-08, at 2:36 PM, John Cremona wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > 2008/9/25 William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> >> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 3:42 AM, mab
On Sep 25, 2:39 pm, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 25-Sep-08, at 2:36 PM, John Cremona wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 2008/9/25 William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 3:42 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Hello folks,
>
> >>> this is alpha1,
On 25-Sep-08, at 2:36 PM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> 2008/9/25 William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 3:42 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello folks,
>>>
>>> this is alpha1, a couple hours later than I wanted, but than a bunch
>>> of things got in th
2008/9/25 William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 3:42 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> this is alpha1, a couple hours later than I wanted, but than a bunch
>> of things got in the way during the day. Sources are in the usual
>> place at
>>
>>
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 3:42 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> this is alpha1, a couple hours later than I wanted, but than a bunch
> of things got in the way during the day. Sources are in the usual
> place at
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cy
mabshoff wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 24, 3:59 pm, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Build:
>> real392m23.029s
>> user340m9.676s
>> sys 28m19.560s
>>
>> make check:
>> Total time for all tests: 9442.7 seconds
>>
>> The total of 6.5 + 2.6 = 9.1 hours is very frustrating.
>>
>> So I don
All tests passed on my intel mac (10.4).
-M. Hampton
On Sep 24, 5:42 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> this is alpha1, a couple hours later than I wanted, but than a bunch
> of things got in the way during the day. Sources are in the usual
> place at
>
> http://sage.math
On Sep 24, 6:02 pm, "Andrzej Giniewicz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Built fine, tested fine with one non-repeatable so far "time-out", in
> plot.py - seems time-out is also reason for 2 failures mentioned on
> that 32bit fedora... (looking at that version that passed, 335 seconds
> is quite some)
On Sep 24, 3:59 pm, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mabshoff wrote:
> > Hello folks,
Hi Jaap,
> > this is alpha1, a couple hours later than I wanted, but than a bunch
> > of things got in the way during the day. Sources are in the usual
> > place at
>
> >http://sage.math.washington.edu
Built fine, tested fine with one non-repeatable so far "time-out", in
plot.py - seems time-out is also reason for 2 failures mentioned on
that 32bit fedora... (looking at that version that passed, 335 seconds
is quite some)...
is there already command-line option to set longer times on slower
mac
Builds and passed sage -testall on amd64 hardy heron.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:42 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> this is alpha1, a couple hours later than I wanted, but than a bunch
> of things got in the way during the day. Sources are in the usual
> place at
>
>
mabshoff wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> this is alpha1, a couple hours later than I wanted, but than a bunch
> of things got in the way during the day. Sources are in the usual
> place at
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-3.1.3/sage-3.1.3.alpha1.tar
>
On Fedora 9 32 b
On Sep 24, 2008, at 2:36 PM, mabshoff wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2:10 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 2008, at 2:02 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>>
>>> but I thought that the new
>>> coercion model allows us to fix the above problem when coercion mv
>>> polynomial rings with loads
On Sep 24, 2:10 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2008, at 2:02 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 9:48 am, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> On Sep 24, 2008, at 3:42 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> > Hi Robert,
>
> >>> What is new in alpha1:
>
> >>> *
On Sep 24, 2008, at 2:02 PM, mabshoff wrote:
> On Sep 24, 9:48 am, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 2008, at 3:42 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hi Robert,
>
>>> What is new in alpha1:
>>
>>> * Robert Bradshaw: more new coercion merges (causes speed
>>> regression
>>> in sr.
On Sep 24, 2008, at 3:42 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> this is alpha1, a couple hours later than I wanted, but than a bunch
> of things got in the way during the day. Sources are in the usual
> place at
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-3.1.3/
> sage-3.
On Sep 24, 9:48 am, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2008, at 3:42 AM, mabshoff wrote:
Hi Robert,
> > What is new in alpha1:
>
> > * Robert Bradshaw: more new coercion merges (causes speed regression
> > in sr.py by about 40%, but since that sucks anyway we can bear wit
Builds & test reports: all well on 32-bit ubuntu and 64-bit Suse.
John
2008/9/24 Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Sep 24, 2008, at 3:42 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> this is alpha1, a couple hours later than I wanted, but than a bunch
>> of things got in the way during t
On Sep 24, 2008, at 3:42 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> this is alpha1, a couple hours later than I wanted, but than a bunch
> of things got in the way during the day. Sources are in the usual
> place at
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-3.1.3/
> sage-3.1.3
Someone else needs to review
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3102 since I did, had some
issues, but the author gfurnish disagreed with me so it's now back at
"needs review".
John
2008/9/24 mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> this is alpha1, a couple hours later than I wa
2008/9/24 Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Wednesday 24 September 2008, John Cremona wrote:
>> About reviews: we put in place a system of editors. Does every
>> ticket have an editor, who is informed when there are patches to be
>> reviewed, so that he/she can ask suitable people to
On Sep 24, 4:37 am, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi John,
> About reviews: we put in place a system of editors. Does every
> ticket have an editor, who is informed when there are patches to be
> reviewed, so that he/she can ask suitable people to do the reviewing?
> It does not s
On Wednesday 24 September 2008, John Cremona wrote:
> About reviews: we put in place a system of editors. Does every
> ticket have an editor, who is informed when there are patches to be
> reviewed, so that he/she can ask suitable people to do the reviewing?
> It does not seem quite right to me
About reviews: we put in place a system of editors. Does every
ticket have an editor, who is informed when there are patches to be
reviewed, so that he/she can ask suitable people to do the reviewing?
It does not seem quite right to me for patch authors to solicit
reviews themselves -- though o
On Sep 24, 3:48 am, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi there,
Hi,
> I would really like to get a (subset of) these tickets into 3.1.3. They
> implement faster multivariate polynomial arithmetic over absolute number
> fields, the integers and (lame, slow!) Gröbner bases over Z and
Hi there,
I would really like to get a (subset of) these tickets into 3.1.3. They
implement faster multivariate polynomial arithmetic over absolute number
fields, the integers and (lame, slow!) Gröbner bases over Z and Z/nZ. As this
feature was requested quite often, I'd hate to see these patc
32 matches
Mail list logo
