On 12 May 2014 16:58, "John Cremona" wrote:
>
> I'm sure that rtf did not mean to provide the physical machine, just the
information about the machine (hardware and os, say)!
>
> John
..k
"(Provide to whom? )"
>
> On 12 May 2014 16:51, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10 May 2014 17:37, "rjf"
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
> On 10 May 2014 17:37, "rjf" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems to me that the "reproducibility" should be with respect to the
>> same conditions as the original publication. That is, someone who says
>> "I'm telling the truth because yada yad
I'm sure that rtf did not mean to provide the physical machine, just the
information about the machine (hardware and os, say)!
John
On 12 May 2014 16:51, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
> On 10 May 2014 17:37, "rjf" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > It seems to me that the "reproducibility" should be with res
On 10 May 2014 17:37, "rjf" wrote:
>
>
>
> It seems to me that the "reproducibility" should be with respect to the
same conditions as the original publication. That is, someone who says
"I'm telling the truth because yada yada Sage version x.y.z on machine
q.p should provide not only the co
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 03:49:56AM -0700, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>I thought a bit about this ongoing conversation, and I wondered if the
>best to do wouldn't be to give Sage users some *automatic* service to
>*help them maintain their code*.
>My point is that I would not like us to ta
It seems to me that the "reproducibility" should be with respect to the
same conditions as the original publication. That is, someone who says
"I'm telling the truth because yada yada Sage version x.y.z on machine
q.p should provide not only the commands, but version x.y.z and
machin
> Well, essentially that's already possible:
>
> Create a trac ticket with your file(s) in a branch, and let the patchbots
> regularly test it.
>
> (Although that's kind of abusing Sage's trac, since such tickets will
> presumably never get merged, i.e., closed.)
>
>
> We could also set up a patchb
On 5/9/14 4:40 AM, leif wrote:
> Anne Schilling wrote:
>> We actually added tests for our k-Schur function book. But a lot of
>> time, when syntax in
>> Sage changes, these tests just get replaced by others without checking
>> with the authors
>> of the book/paper.
>
> git log src/sage/tests/book_
On 2014-05-09 14:08, David Loeffler wrote:
It's happened a few times that people have put tests in the sage/tests
directory which explicitly require that certain inputs return
NotImplementedError, or something similar. Surely we shouldn't have to
go through the rigmarole of contacting the origina
It's happened a few times that people have put tests in the sage/tests
directory which explicitly require that certain inputs return
NotImplementedError, or something similar. Surely we shouldn't have to
go through the rigmarole of contacting the original author and waiting
a year in order to add a
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Anne Schilling
wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> We actually added tests for our k-Schur function book. But a lot of time,
> when syntax in
> Sage changes, these tests just get replaced by others without checking with
> the authors
> of the book/paper. So the published Sage
11 matches
Mail list logo
