On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 11:34:04 AM UTC+1, Dr David Kirkby wrote:
>
> On 26 March 2018 at 00:09, Dima Pasechnik >
> wrote:
>
>> Given this, there should be no tickets made blockers merely on the basis
>> that Sage broke on your favourite patchbot or laptop...
>>
>> Dima
>>
>
> I think the
On 26 March 2018 at 00:09, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> Given this, there should be no tickets made blockers merely on the basis
> that Sage broke on your favourite patchbot or laptop...
>
> Dima
>
I think the method Wolfram Research follow with Mathematica has a *lot* of
merit. With respect to Linu
There is another problem, which should be treated separately: sometimes
doctests of optional packages fail because of newly introduced bugs or
modifications in sage core. An example is
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24827 (now fixed and closed).
I think one point of having the label "optional
Sure, a failure on all systems, or even on all Linux/OSX systems (see, more
fuzziness here :-)) ought to be a reason for making something a blocker.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 1:09:32 AM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> TLDR; "supported platform" and "blocker ticket" are merely engineering
> terms. There are not and cannot be as precise
> as mathematical theorems :-)
>
Still, if a standard package fails doctests on all systems it's a blocke
On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC+1, Dr David Kirkby wrote:
>
>
> On 25 March 2018 at 18:06, William Stein >
> wrote:
>
>> >> opinions.
>>
>> My initial intention with ooptional packages was definitely that they
>> do *not* have as much support as standard.
>>
>
> The developers guide.
On 25 March 2018 at 18:06, William Stein wrote:
> >> opinions.
>
> My initial intention with ooptional packages was definitely that they
> do *not* have as much support as standard.
>
The developers guide.
http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/packaging.html
says:
"
- *optional* packa
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> On 25 March 2018 at 10:03, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Apparently Volker does not agree with what was a kind of agreement here
>>
>> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24903#comment:3
>> https://trac.sagemath
On 25 March 2018 at 10:03, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Apparently Volker does not agree with what was a kind of agreement here
>
> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24903#comment:3
> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23533#comment:13
>
> It would be nice that we take a con
On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 2:51:46 PM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> one can install autotools on archlinux systemwide
>
Also, autotools aren't even required to build Sage.
Whats the point of delaying a release for weeks/months to fix an optional
package? Presumably you agree that broken st
IMHO in these two cases these tickets should not be blockers for just purely
practical reasons:
one can install autotools on archlinux systemwide
one can use a better gcc version to build that other package.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-d
Apparently Volker does not agree with what was a kind of agreement here
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24903#comment:3
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23533#comment:13
It would be nice that we take a concrete decision about how much we
support optional packages (and write it in the developer
Hi Jeroen and Vincent,
Thanks for your concrete answers to my questions.
If people want to keep discussing security issues of sage feel free to do
so but please do it in a different thread. I would like this thread to
focus on my initial question and not get cluttered by related discussions.
On 13/09/2017 15:28, Maarten Derickx wrote:
So the main questions: do we consider an optional package not building, not
passing it's own testsuite or causing sage to have doctest failures a bug?
I do. And as well for me it is the frontier between optional and
experimental packages.
In the o
On 2017-09-13 15:28, Maarten Derickx wrote:
So the main questions: do we consider an optional package not building,
not passing it's own testsuite or causing sage to have doctest failures
a bug?
Yes.
In the other thread it was mentioned that patchbot failures should be
considered blocker stat
15 matches
Mail list logo
