On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2010-09-17 11:08, Mike Hansen wrote:
>> Or, an alternative to just removing the test is to make it so that
>> Sage starts up faster so that the test doesn't fail. Something like
>> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6494 is a step
On 2010-09-17 11:08, Mike Hansen wrote:
> Or, an alternative to just removing the test is to make it so that
> Sage starts up faster so that the test doesn't fail. Something like
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6494 is a step in that
> direction.
Well, that is a different issue. I th
On 09/17/2010 04:08 AM, Mike Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Jeroen Demeyer
> wrote:
>> I do not like the sage/tests/startup.py test (which tests, only on
>> sage.math.washington.edu, that Sage starts up in 1.5 seconds). I
>> regularly get non-reproducible failures in this doct
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> I do not like the sage/tests/startup.py test (which tests, only on
> sage.math.washington.edu, that Sage starts up in 1.5 seconds). I
> regularly get non-reproducible failures in this doctest. As far as I'm
> concerned, that test can simp
Hello sage-devel,
I do not like the sage/tests/startup.py test (which tests, only on
sage.math.washington.edu, that Sage starts up in 1.5 seconds). I
regularly get non-reproducible failures in this doctest. As far as I'm
concerned, that test can simply be removed.
Jeroen.
--
To post to this g
