Ticket #9373 (closed enhancement: fixed)
some overhaul in organization of database of common graph generators
| Reported by: | mvngu | Owned by: | jason, ncohen, rlm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-4.5.2 |
| Component: | graph theory | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | Work issues: | ||
| Report Upstream: | N/A | Reviewers: | Nathann Cohen |
| Authors: | Minh Van Nguyen | Merged in: | sage-4.5.2.alpha0 |
| Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by mvngu) (diff)
The database of common graph generators maintains two separate lists of such generators. This entails a lot of work when updating that database as one would need to update two separate lists. Not only that, but having two lists that contain essentially the same information is information duplication. One could update a list and then forgot to update the other list. Better to have one list with links to corresponding generators.
Apply:
Attachments
-
trac_9373-graphdb.patch
(20.6 KB) -
added by mvngu 3 years ago.
-
trac_9373.patch
(20.8 KB) -
added by ncohen 3 years ago.
Change History
comment:1 Changed 3 years ago by mvngu
- Status changed from new to needs_review
- Authors set to Minh Van Nguyen
comment:2 Changed 3 years ago by ncohen
Hello Minh !! I applied this patch on 4.5.rc1, which has a lot of new Graph methods, and found this patch needed to be rebased. I just finished, and your patch is fine for me, thank you for your work ! Here is the rebased version.. Could you give it a final check before setting this to "positive review" ? :-)
Nathann
comment:3 Changed 3 years ago by mvngu
With a rebased patch, some people consider it rather rude to have the rebase author's name in the username field, instead of the original author's name. Your rebased patch clearly has your username. It's like a reviewer replacing the original author's name with their own name, thus claiming credit for authoring the original patch. Perhaps you overlooked this?
comment:4 Changed 3 years ago by ncohen
?.....
I'm terribly sorry....
How can I change this field ? Manually ? :-/
Nathann
comment:5 Changed 3 years ago by ncohen
Ok, I just edited the corresponding line and replaced it with what was written in your patch.
I really hadn't thought of it... I'm very very sorry for that :-/
Nathann
