Tracker bug for toric varieties

[vbraun]

This bug tracks the current status of the toric varieties code and the interdependence of new patches, which should be applied on top of Sage 5.2. Any (properly ordered) part of positively reviewed patches can be merged at any time, there is no need to "bundle tickets."

Applied to the current Sage alpha/beta/rc:

Applied to the next alpha/beta/rc:

Positively reviewed:

Needs work / review:

These groups (separated by blank lines) can be applied independently on top of the positively reviewed ones:

• #14409: sage_input support for some geometry objects

• #13194: FaceFan and NormalFan should work with (non-lattice) polyhedra
• #14394: FaceFan bug if origin is on boundary

• #13183: Implement index(cone) for fan morphisms
• #14353: Factor toric morphism into surjective and generically injective
• #12892: Toric fibration morphisms
• #12900: (Demazure) roots of toric varieties

• #12553: Add interface for PALP polytope databases
• #13084: Weierstrass form for toric elliptic curves

• #11559: Speed up Posets and toric Chow group

[mpatel]

Can I merge #9470 and #9326 now, or should I wait until every ticket has a positive review?

[vbraun]

#9470 and #9326 are ready to be merged, but I thought that 4.5.2 is in feature freeze now?

[mpatel]

Replying to vbraun:

#9470 and #9326 are ready to be merged, but I thought that 4.5.2 is in feature freeze now?

Indeed, we'll release 4.5.2 very soon. I've been preparing a 4.5.3.alpha0.

[vbraun]

updated patch

[novoselt]

I'll put bugs in front of toric divisors, since they have chances to be settled quickly.

[novoselt]

I sneaked in yet another patch in front of toric divisors, in case it will be useful for Kaehler/Mori? cones (maybe not due to dimension limitations), but so far it is independent of #9337 and can be shifted down.

[vbraun]

trac_9664_add_toric_potter.patch depends on trac_9972_add_toric_lattice_morphisms.patch. No logical dependency, but thats how the patch works out. I don't think order matters too much on that one, just wanted to get it right.

[novoselt]

No more dependence ;-)

[SimonKing]

Sorry for temporarily making #10513 a dependency. This ticket isn't ready, yet. Thus I reoved the dependency again.

[novoselt]

Tried to make all dependencies and especially their absences more clear.

Volker, I am a little confused by comments on #8169 and #9918 - do they depend on/conflict with each other somehow?

[vbraun]

#9918 uses the TOPCOM spkg (in #8169) if it is available, and falls back to its own implementation if not. So there is no dependency either way. Except that applying #8169 without #9918 would be meaningless as there would be nothing in the sage library to use TOPCOM.

[novoselt]

So none of the patches of #8169 should be applied, it just provides an optional package, correct?

[vbraun]

Yes, none of the patches in #8169 should be applied.

[vbraun]

I've started to put my patch queue into a mercurial repository itself. See

 https://bitbucket.org/vbraun/mq-for-sage-toric-varieties/src