On Dec 8, 2008, at 1:11 PM, root wrote:
>
>> What about an option to the upgrade script, e.g.
>>
>> sage -upgrade [-b branch]
>>
>> which would upgrade specified branch inplace if specified?
>
> I don't want to start a religious war but this is trivial in
> a git repository. There was some talk a
>What about an option to the upgrade script, e.g.
>
>sage -upgrade [-b branch]
>
>which would upgrade specified branch inplace if specified?
I don't want to start a religious war but this is trivial in
a git repository. There was some talk a while back about changing
to git.
Tim
--~--~
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Robert Bradshaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 8, 2008, at 11:58 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Robert Bradshaw
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> We can detect whether or not a merge will be needed, just to a "hg
>>> i
>> Of course, maintaining two types of upgrade command is more work, and
>> potentially confusing. Thoughts?
Here's another option ... Robert's main issue seems to be that the
question of how to deal with the fact that the merge comes in halfway
through. So rather than have different commands,
On Dec 8, 2008, at 11:58 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Robert Bradshaw
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> We can detect whether or not a merge will be needed, just to a "hg
>> incoming" and "hg diff" from sage-main to the newly unpacked sage-
>> x.y.z spkg. If the
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Robert Bradshaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 8, 2008, at 1:56 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>> On Dec 7, 1:37 am, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> On Dec 5, 2008, at 5:10 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
You have to manually resolve this me
On Dec 8, 2008, at 1:56 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> On Dec 7, 1:37 am, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> On Dec 5, 2008, at 5:10 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>
>
>>> You have to manually resolve this merge conflict by editing
>>> integer.pyx, choosing one of the two options, and then
>>> c
On Dec 8, 7:47 am, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi John,
> I don't know if this message got noticed, so I'm bumping it.
I saw it, but I never answered.
> > After running the doctests for the files rings/polynomial/
> > multi_polynomial_libsingular.pyx and interfaces/psage.py
I don't know if this message got noticed, so I'm bumping it.
On Dec 6, 1:52 pm, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 9:13 am, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 6, 8:50 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 6, 8:19 am, John H Palmieri <[
On Dec 7, 1:37 am, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2008, at 5:10 PM, William Stein wrote:
> > You have to manually resolve this merge conflict by editing
> > integer.pyx, choosing one of the two options, and then
> > check in the result of doing the merge.
>
> I think u
On Dec 5, 2008, at 5:10 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:39 PM, John H Palmieri
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 5, 10:35 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>> sage -ba crashes because integer.pyx is corrupted (presumably from
>> the
>> upgrade process): l
On Dec 6, 2008, at 09:41 , mabshoff wrote:
> On Dec 6, 9:38 am, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Dec 6, 2008, at 02:06 , mabshoff wrote:
[snip]
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-3.2.2/alpha1/trac_4719_bin.patch
OK, did a full build of 3.2.2.alpha0
On Dec 6, 9:13 am, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 8:50 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 6, 8:19 am, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 5, 5:10 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
>
> > > > You have to
Hi, Michael,
On Dec 6, 2008, at 09:41 , mabshoff wrote:
> On Dec 6, 9:38 am, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Dec 6, 2008, at 02:06 , mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Can you apply #4719 to the local/bin repo and rerun the tests?
>>
>> Hmmm...
[snip]
> Oops, you are right, the actua
On Dec 6, 9:38 am, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2008, at 02:06 , mabshoff wrote:
> > Can you apply #4719 to the local/bin repo and rerun the tests?
>
> Hmmm...
>
> applying /SandBox/Justin/sb/Sage/Patches/trac_4719_bin.patch
> patching file sage-doctest
> Hunk #1
On Dec 6, 2008, at 02:06 , mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 5, 11:45 pm, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Dec 5, 2008, at 02:19 , mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hi Justin,
>
>> Mac OS X, 10.5.5: the upgrade completed without problems.
>>
>> Testing did not go well. 56 tests failed (all of
On Dec 6, 8:50 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 8:19 am, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 5, 5:10 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> > > You have to manually resolve this merge conflict by editing
> > > integer.pyx, choosin
On Dec 6, 8:19 am, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 5:10 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Hi John,
>
> > You have to manually resolve this merge conflict by editing
> > integer.pyx, choosing one of the two options, and then
> > check in the result of doing
On Dec 5, 5:10 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You have to manually resolve this merge conflict by editing
> integer.pyx, choosing one of the two options, and then
> check in the result of doing the merge.
Actually, before you posted this I just edited integer.pyx by hand and
r
On Dec 5, 11:45 pm, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2008, at 02:19 , mabshoff wrote:
Hi Justin,
> Mac OS X, 10.5.5: the upgrade completed without problems.
>
> Testing did not go well. 56 tests failed (all of the 'mysterious'
> sort). I ran "-ba" and tried again,
On Dec 5, 2008, at 02:19 , mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> here goes 3.2.2.alpha0. We have been steadily merging patches and
> gotten some of the larger and more disruptive patches in. The most
> visible change is #717 by Gary Furnish which finally fixes a long
> standing problem with time
On Dec 5, 2008, at 02:19 , mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> here goes 3.2.2.alpha0. We have been steadily merging patches and
> gotten some of the larger and more disruptive patches in. The most
> visible change is #717 by Gary Furnish which finally fixes a long
> standing problem with time
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:39 PM, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 5, 10:35 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Dec 5, 9:58 am, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> > On Intel Mac OS X 10.5, I'm getting failures after upgrading from
>> > 3.2.
On Dec 5, 4:39 pm, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 10:35 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi John,
> > It would be interesting to see if anyone can reproduce the upgrade
> > problem on one hand and on the other if a -ba had fixed it.
>
> sage -ba crashes because i
On Dec 5, 10:35 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 9:58 am, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> > On Intel Mac OS X 10.5, I'm getting failures after upgrading from
> > 3.2.1: the first time I did './sage -testall -long', it hung after the
> > tutorial, but
mabshoff wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 5, 2:13 pm, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> mabshoff wrote:
[...]
>
>>> And if you are still hitting that odd failure in combinat on FC 10
>>> please open a ticket for that one, too. It might be a Heisenbug, but
>>> experience has taught me that this is som
On Dec 5, 2:13 pm, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mabshoff wrote:
Hi Jaap,
> > It would also be nice if you could open a ticket for the numerical
> > noise doctest issue you hit since the output from at least the first
> > example seemed truncated.
>
> It is now #4720.
Thanks.
> >
mabshoff wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 5, 1:35 pm, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> mabshoff wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 5, 7:19 am, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi Jaap,
>>> Can you check if a "sage -ba" fixes those issues?
>> This did not help :(
>
> Yeah, no surprise here since David Loe
On Dec 5, 1:35 pm, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mabshoff wrote:
>
> > On Dec 5, 7:19 am, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jaap,
>
> > Can you check if a "sage -ba" fixes those issues?
>
> This did not help :(
Yeah, no surprise here since David Loeffler nailed the proble
mabshoff wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 5, 7:19 am, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Jaap,
>
>
> Can you check if a "sage -ba" fixes those issues?
>
This did not help :(
Jaap
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegro
On Dec 5, 1:20 pm, daveloeffler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi David,
> I've opened a ticket (#4719) for doctest crashing on failures.
Thanks, I commented on the ticket about the likely cause and CCed the
right people.
> > OK. I am seeing the numerical noise issue at #4276, but I would also
>
I've opened a ticket (#4719) for doctest crashing on failures.
[mabshoff]
> OK. I am seeing the numerical noise issue at #4276, but I would also
> be curious about the cachefunc.py failure.
The failure I'm getting is in the doctest for
CachedFunction._sage_src_. Running with verbose mode on one
2008/12/5 John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Fresh build on 64-bit Suse:
>
> The following tests failed:
>sage -t "devel/sage/sage/interfaces/sage0.py"
>
> but a subsequent separate test passed. The original error message was:
> sage -t "devel/sage/sage/interfaces/sage0.py"
> A mysteri
Fresh build on 64-bit Suse:
The following tests failed:
sage -t "devel/sage/sage/interfaces/sage0.py"
but a subsequent separate test passed. The original error message was:
sage -t "devel/sage/sage/interfaces/sage0.py"
A mysterious error (perphaps a memory error?) occurred, which may
mabshoff wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> here goes 3.2.2.alpha0. We have been steadily merging patches and
> gotten some of the larger and more disruptive patches in. The most
> visible change is #717 by Gary Furnish which finally fixes a long
> standing problem with time out issues in doctests, i.e.
daveloeffler wrote:
> I've also been getting the "mysterious error may have crashed doctest"
> messages, and on closer inspection I think there's actually a bug *in
> the doctest framework*, which causes it to report all failed doctests
> as "mysterious errors".
I think you are right!
Jaap
--~
On Dec 5, 11:06 am, daveloeffler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi David,
> I've also been getting the "mysterious error may have crashed doctest"
> messages, and on closer inspection I think there's actually a bug *in
> the doctest framework*, which causes it to report all failed doctests
> as "mys
I've also been getting the "mysterious error may have crashed doctest"
messages, and on closer inspection I think there's actually a bug *in
the doctest framework*, which causes it to report all failed doctests
as "mysterious errors". I tested this myself by creating a Python file
with a single fu
On Dec 5, 10:35 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 9:58 am, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> > On Intel Mac OS X 10.5, I'm getting failures after upgrading from
> > 3.2.1: the first time I did './sage -testall -long', it hung after the
> > tutorial, but
On Dec 5, 7:19 am, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Jaap,
>
> Om Fedora 9, 32 bits after an upgrade from 3.2.1-rc1:
>
> --
> The following tests failed:
>
> sage -t "devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_poly
On Dec 5, 9:58 am, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi John,
> On Intel Mac OS X 10.5, I'm getting failures after upgrading from
> 3.2.1: the first time I did './sage -testall -long', it hung after the
> tutorial, but I haven't been able to reproduce this. The other times,
> I'm gett
Installed fine and all tests passed on amd64 hardy heron.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 5:19 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> here goes 3.2.2.alpha0. We have been steadily merging patches and
> gotten some of the larger and more disruptive patches in. The most
> visible chan
On Intel Mac OS X 10.5, I'm getting failures after upgrading from
3.2.1: the first time I did './sage -testall -long', it hung after the
tutorial, but I haven't been able to reproduce this. The other times,
I'm getting
"A mysterious error (perphaps a memory error?) occurred, which may
have crashe
mabshoff wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> here goes 3.2.2.alpha0. We have been steadily merging patches and
> gotten some of the larger and more disruptive patches in. The most
> visible change is #717 by Gary Furnish which finally fixes a long
> standing problem with time out issues in doctests, i.e. w
44 matches
Mail list logo
