Craig Citro wrote:
Thank you for the very long email.
I got an email off-list from someone else, which I believe rather put
your email into perspective.
I'm really sorry if anything in my email was offensive -- I knew the
thread was already fairly heated, and definitely didn't want to add to
> Thank you for the very long email.
>
> I got an email off-list from someone else, which I believe rather put
> your email into perspective.
>
I'm really sorry if anything in my email was offensive -- I knew the
thread was already fairly heated, and definitely didn't want to add to
that. (And I s
On Friday 26 March 2010, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> Craig Citro wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > As one of the people William mentioned who'd complained about the
> > volume of Solaris email on sage-devel, I thought I should weigh in.
>
> Thank you for the very long email.
>
> I got an email off-list
Craig Citro wrote:
Hi David,
As one of the people William mentioned who'd complained about the
volume of Solaris email on sage-devel, I thought I should weigh in.
Thank you for the very long email.
I got an email off-list from someone else, which I believe rather things put
your email into
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> Yes. I would like a policy that spkgs are only updated on x.y releases,
>> but I'm in the minority with you in trying to get release numbers to mean
>> something more concrete.
>
> Robert, I doubt we are in such a
I might be often engaged in a risky spkg behaviour, but I broke three
or four Sage installations by upgrading.
The problems ensued were often subtle, e.g. a strange state of hg
stuff, or a function in a newly installed package complaining (at
runtime!)
that some g95-related .so file is missing
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mar 20, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Dima Pasechnik wrote:
well, actually, it might remove a confusion over this option is the
upgrade path is not posted as the 1st thing in every
release announcement.
Yes, perhaps it should be added at the bottom, wit
On Mar 20, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Dima Pasechnik wrote:
well, actually, it might remove a confusion over this option is the
upgrade path is not posted as the 1st thing in every
release announcement.
Yes, perhaps it should be added at the bottom, with a note such as
"Altho
Dima Pasechnik wrote:
well, actually, it might remove a confusion over this option is the
upgrade path is not posted as the 1st thing in every
release announcement.
Yes, perhaps it should be added at the bottom, with a note such as
"Although very risky, you might try to upgrade a previous ver
well, actually, it might remove a confusion over this option is the
upgrade path is not posted as the 1st thing in every
release announcement.
On Mar 20, 8:36 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> >> upgradi
William Stein wrote:
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
Dima Pasechnik wrote:
upgrading from alpha1 to rc0 fails on t2.
It fails at updating cddlib, complaining about two copies of
libgmp.so, one in /usr/local/lib, and
another in SAGE_LOCAL/lib.
-
I relieved to know that one does not have to check that an updated
spkg does not break
sage -
upgrade_will_surely_screw_up_your_sage_install_unless_you_are_william
option...
On Mar 20, 8:36 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > Dima
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>> upgrading from alpha1 to rc0 fails on t2.
>> It fails at updating cddlib, complaining about two copies of
>> libgmp.so, one in /usr/local/lib, and
>> another in SAGE_LOCAL/lib.
>>
>> --
>
Dima Pasechnik wrote:
upgrading from alpha1 to rc0 fails on t2.
It fails at updating cddlib, complaining about two copies of
libgmp.so, one in /usr/local/lib, and
another in SAGE_LOCAL/lib.
--
/scratch/dima/sage-4.3.4.alpha1$ ./sage -upgrade
http://sage.math.washington.ed
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mar 19, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Jaap Spies wrote:
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
However, there is still a significant number of .spkg updates each
release.
Yes. I would like a policy that spkgs are only updated on x.y releases,
but I'm in the minority with you in trying to get
upgrading from alpha1 to rc0 fails on t2.
It fails at updating cddlib, complaining about two copies of
libgmp.so, one in /usr/local/lib, and
another in SAGE_LOCAL/lib.
--
/scratch/dima/sage-4.3.4.alpha1$ ./sage -upgrade
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/release/sage-4.3.
On Mar 19, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Jaap Spies wrote:
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
[snipped]
For spkgs, changes to shell scripts, etc. a it is much more
important
to test on a wide variety of platforms. Fortunately, most
contributions are plain vanilla Python/Cython.
Thanks for
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
[snipped]
For spkgs, changes to shell scripts, etc. a it is much more important
to test on a wide variety of platforms. Fortunately, most
contributions are plain vanilla Python/Cython.
Thanks for bringing this up, this is an example of what separa
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mar 19, 2010, at 3:18 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
Craig,
[...]
For the record, I think it's pretty unreasonable to *require* Sage
developers to test on anything but their own machine -- but I *do*
think it's very reasonable to ask them to help fix problems with their
p
On Mar 19, 2010, at 7:59 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Craig Citro wrote:
It would be nice to have an automatic build-farm where you can just
run tests
on all the needed platforms, and fix the results, but this would,
for
instance, seem to
require a central repository with a current snapshot
On Mar 19, 2010, at 3:18 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
Craig,
[...]
For the record, I think it's pretty unreasonable to *require* Sage
developers to test on anything but their own machine -- but I *do*
think it's very reasonable to ask them to help fix problems with
their
patches that arise on
about 10 years ago I worked full-time on CGAL (www.cgal.org) for a
while, and we had a kind
of (semi)automatic testing suite that pulled a snapshot from a CVS
server, ran tests on a number
of platforms, and reported results on a webpage.
Dima
On Mar 19, 10:59 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> Cra
Craig Citro wrote:
It would be nice to have an automatic build-farm where you can just
run tests
on all the needed platforms, and fix the results, but this would, for
instance, seem to
require a central repository with a current snapshot of Sage,
something hardly
feasible in any moment, except,
> It would be nice to have an automatic build-farm where you can just
> run tests
> on all the needed platforms, and fix the results, but this would, for
> instance, seem to
> require a central repository with a current snapshot of Sage,
> something hardly
> feasible in any moment, except, perhaps
Craig,
[...]
> For the record, I think it's pretty unreasonable to *require* Sage
> developers to test on anything but their own machine -- but I *do*
> think it's very reasonable to ask them to help fix problems with their
> patches that arise on other architectures, especially if we can give
> t
Hi David,
As one of the people William mentioned who'd complained about the
volume of Solaris email on sage-devel, I thought I should weigh in.
For reference, I actually stopped getting email from sage-devel and
switched to reading on the web because I felt like I couldn't handle
the volume. Mind
2010/3/18 Dr. David Kirkby :
>
> I explained my motives. Whether you wish to believe them or not is up to you.
> It is not just the list, but what I perceive as an indifference towards
> Solaris from you on the public side, then a private side telling me how
> important it is for Sage to run on
On Mar 19, 3:22 am, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > For your information,
>
> > $ make testlong
>
> > ends with:
>
> > sage -t -long "devel/sage/sage/symbolic/__init__.py"
> > [0.3 s]
> > sage -t -long "devel/sage/sage/symboli
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> For your information,
>
> $ make testlong
>
> ends with:
>
> sage -t -long "devel/sage/sage/symbolic/__init__.py"
> [0.3 s]
> sage -t -long "devel/sage/sage/symbolic/constants_c.pyx"
> [11.9 s]
> sage -t -long "devel/sa
Jason Grout wrote:
Thanks for clarifying. So apparently you feel David should have waited
to post something (hopefully!) like: "Sage built on Solaris SPARC and
doctests passed." or at least "no new doctest failures happened"?
Thanks,
Jason
For your information,
$ make testlong
ends wit
John Cremona wrote:
On 18 March 2010 12:20, Kiran Kedlaya wrote:
I think David may be quitting because he feels marginalized by a
substantial segment of the Sage development community, which has been
expressing its antipathy towards discussion of the Solaris port by
complaining previously off-l
William Stein wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Dan Drake wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 at 12:56AM -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
[...]
Yes. This post contains nothing "actionable".
Actually, I think all such posts belong on sage-releas
mhampton wrote:
It does seem unnecessarily marginalizing to make a sage-solaris group.
-Marshall
Thank you Marshall. I'm glad I'm not alone in feeling this.
I'm surprised how many people do share my view, even if they are not keen
Solaris users themselves.
--
To post to this group, send a
ggrafendorfer wrote:
Of course only David can speak for his own motives, but do you really
think David is quitting because of me creating a sage-solaris mailing
list?
William,
As far as I can judge the situation, its not what you doing, but the
way you are doing it what makes him quit (if he d
On Mar 18, 2010, at 5:13 AM, Kiran Kedlaya wrote:
On Mar 18, 3:56 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
Actually, I think all such posts belong on sage-release; all 1000+
subscribers to sage-devel don't need to know every time Sage alpha X
builds or brakes on system Y. (Of course, these replies are
inv
> Of course only David can speak for his own motives, but do you really
> think David is quitting because of me creating a sage-solaris mailing
> list?
William,
As far as I can judge the situation, its not what you doing, but the
way you are doing it what makes him quit (if he does so),
it would
I completely agree with Kiran's points.
Personally I hate getting list emails, so I read all the sage groups
on a browser. A proliferation of groups makes it harder for me to
keep up - for example, I would probably pay more attention to notebook
development issues if they were on sage-devel. I
Hi!
On Mar 18, 12:25 pm, John Cremona wrote:
> > I think David may be quitting because he feels marginalized by a
> > substantial segment of the Sage development community, which has been
> > expressing its antipathy towards discussion of the Solaris port by
> > complaining previously off-list, n
On 18 March 2010 12:20, Kiran Kedlaya wrote:
> On Mar 18, 5:01 am, William Stein wrote:
>> I have been receiving regular off list complaints from people that
>> there are too many Solaris posts (as explained above). It is only
>> natural to create:
>>
>> * sage-solaris: the primary list f
On Mar 18, 5:01 am, William Stein wrote:
> I have been receiving regular off list complaints from people that
> there are too many Solaris posts (as explained above). It is only
> natural to create:
>
> * sage-solaris: the primary list for Solaris porting discussion.
>
> ...
>
> Of course
On Mar 18, 3:56 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> Actually, I think all such posts belong on sage-release; all 1000+
> subscribers to sage-devel don't need to know every time Sage alpha X
> builds or brakes on system Y. (Of course, these replies are invaluable
> for the release manager, so I don'
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Dan Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 at 12:56AM -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
> [...]
>> >Yes. This post contains nothing "actionable".
>>
>> Actually, I think all such posts belong on sage-release; all 1000
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 at 12:56AM -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
[...]
> >Yes. This post contains nothing "actionable".
>
> Actually, I think all such posts belong on sage-release; all 1000+
> subscribers to sage-devel don't need to know every tim
On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
So sage built, but it may or may not work. And you're building it on
another machine, but it may or not build. What was the point of
this post?
Thanks for clarifying. So apparently you feel David should have
waited to post something (hop
Nick,
well, I found this particular figure of speech ("the people...") quite
disturbing;
perhaps cause it reminded me of Soviet Union, where I grew up, or
perhaps because it is (over)used by American politicians...
It just could be that Dave snapped for a similar reason (although I
cannot read his
So sage built, but it may or may not work. And you're building it on
another machine, but it may or not build. What was the point of
this post?
Thanks for clarifying. So apparently you feel David should have
waited to post something (hopefully!) like: "Sage built on Solaris
SPARC and doct
On 03/17/2010 11:52 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
On 17-Mar-10, at 10:21 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 03/17/2010 06:41 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
What do you consider a Solaris-only issue? When a problem occurs with a
particular release only on Solaris? If that is not put on sage-devel,
you might
On 17-Mar-10, at 10:41 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
William,
While I think that posts here on a particular part of functionality
(e.g. Solaris port) *continuing to work after an
update* should not happen here, only posts on particular parts of
functionality *ceasing to work* should be welcome (D
On 17-Mar-10, at 10:21 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 03/17/2010 06:41 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
What do you consider a Solaris-only issue? When a problem occurs
with a
particular release only on Solaris? If that is not put on sage-devel,
you might as well say goodbye to keeping Sage building
William,
While I think that posts here on a particular part of functionality
(e.g. Solaris port) *continuing to work after an
update* should not happen here, only posts on particular parts of
functionality *ceasing to work* should be welcome (Dave, please take
the note),
(while such posts would s
On 03/17/2010 06:41 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
What do you consider a Solaris-only issue? When a problem occurs with a
particular release only on Solaris? If that is not put on sage-devel,
you might as well say goodbye to keeping Sage building on Solaris.
William,
Can you point out a post o
51 matches
Mail list logo
