So, I committed some code and was attempting to push it to the sage server
when I got this message. How do I find what hook in remote denied my push
and why it is being denied?
```
remote: FATAL: W
refs/heads/u/Tinkidinki/have_the_sage_version_number_present_on_every_page_of_the_documentation
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020, 08:58 Mahathi Vempati, wrote:
> So, I committed some code and was attempting to push it to the sage server
> when I got this message. How do I find what hook in remote denied my push
> and why it is being denied?
>
> ```
> remote: FATAL: W
> refs/heads/u/Tinkidinki/have_the_s
Am Montag, 13. Januar 2020 17:33:56 UTC+1 schrieb E. Madison Bray:
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 9:24 AM Antonio Rojas > wrote:
> >
> > El viernes, 10 de enero de 2020, 14:54:24 (UTC+1), E. Madison Bray
> escribió:
> >>
> >> That seems like the obvious approach to me. As it is I've long felt
yes, I authenticated with an ssh key.
Is this an authentication issue? I had assumed there was some issue with my
code that a hook was not letting pass.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 2:44 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020, 08:58 Mahathi Vempati, wrote:
>
>> So, I committed some code
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:31 AM Mahathi Vempati wrote:
>
> yes, I authenticated with an ssh key.
> Is this an authentication issue? I had assumed there was some issue with my
> code that a hook was not letting pass.
It seems that you never had any git branches successfully
pushed to trac.sagema
On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 7:44 PM Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to suggest that the sooner we drop Python 2 support the better.
> We still need to handle the upgrade to ipython7 and the compatibility with
> python 3.8. All this will be made very difficult if we insist on main
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 2:31 AM Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Maybe you want
>
> sage: T(S.flattening_morphism()(f))
> a*x + b*x + a*y + b*y
>
>
> Le 14/01/2020 à 08:22, Travis Scrimshaw a écrit :
> > Hi everyone,
> > I wanted to know if this is a deliberate behavior o
That worked, yes.
Thank you!
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 4:15 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:31 AM Mahathi Vempati
> wrote:
> >
> > yes, I authenticated with an ssh key.
> > Is this an authentication issue? I had assumed there was some issue with
> my code that a hook was not
So one thing I thought of that could be a problem is this:
ZZ['x'] --> ZZ['x,y']['x']
or more generally anytime there are repeated variable names. Actually, in
this case, I feel the default should be to go into the base ring rather
than the final ring, but another option would be to just error
This has been a long discussion already. Let me try to summarize. My
question was :
*Do you agree that sage release 9.1 (and most of the 9.1.betas) will not
be kept compatible with Python 2 ?*
Some people give a more or less clear *positive* answer :
Chapoton, Bissey, Gourgoulhon, Kaufmann,
Strong *applause* from me. (This is a very hard problem and I continue to
be amazed and greatly appreciate what everybody has done related to Python3
support in Sage!)
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 9:01 AM Frédéric Chapoton
wrote:
> This has been a long discussion already. Let me try to summarize. My
>
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:32 AM Travis Scrimshaw
wrote:
> So one thing I thought of that could be a problem is this:
>
> ZZ['x'] --> ZZ['x,y']['x']
>
> or more generally anytime there are repeated variable names. Actually, in
> this case, I feel the default should be to go into the base ring rat
Precisely the title.
How do you go about closing a ticket if a described bug doesn't seem to
exist anymore?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage
set the milestone to duplicate/invalid/wontfix
and give it positive review, with an explanation in a comment.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 5:53 PM Mahathi Vempati wrote:
>
> Precisely the title.
>
> How do you go about closing a ticket if a described bug doesn't seem to exist
> anymore?
>
>
> --
> Yo
Okay, will do. Thanks!
On Tue 14 Jan, 2020, 11:38 PM Dima Pasechnik, wrote:
> set the milestone to duplicate/invalid/wontfix
> and give it positive review, with an explanation in a comment.
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 5:53 PM Mahathi Vempati
> wrote:
> >
> > Precisely the title.
> >
> > How do
On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 9:01:42 AM UTC-8, Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
>
> So here is my proposal.
>
> * Starting from now, we allow ourselves to move on, using 9.1 betas and
> further releases for external python3 updates, including switch to
> ipython7, which seems to me the most urgent mat
On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 10:08:36 AM UTC-8, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> set the milestone to duplicate/invalid/wontfix
> and give it positive review, with an explanation in a comment.
>
Depending how striking the claimed bug is, it might be inspiration for a
good doctest, in which case the
On 1/14/20 12:01 PM, Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
>
> [A] It seems to me that the conclusion of the vote is rather clear, and
> that we should not feel obliged to make 9.1 compilable with python2.
>
Since I'm not on that list yet, one thing is for sure: there are going
to be two consecutive versions
On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 8:01:18 PM UTC-5, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
>
> 1. Branch off the 9.0 release
> 2. Drop compatibility in 9.1
> 3. Proceed as normal
> 4. If there are any major bugs found in 9.1, backport the fix to
> the 9.0 branch, and release a 9.0.1 that supports
On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 12:01:42 PM UTC-5, Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
>
> So here is my proposal.
>
> * Starting from now, we allow ourselves to move on, using 9.1 betas and
> further releases for external python3 updates, including switch to
> ipython7, which seems to me the most urgent ma
20 matches
Mail list logo
