Opened 7 years ago
Closed 3 years ago
#11529 closed enhancement (fixed)
Rooted trees
Reported by:  hivert  Owned by:  hivert 

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sage6.7 
Component:  combinatorics  Keywords:  rooted trees 
Cc:  sagecombinat, tscrim, darij  Merged in:  
Authors:  Florent Hivert  Reviewers:  Frédéric Chapoton, Darij Grinberg, Travis Scrimshaw 
Report Upstream:  N/A  Work issues:  
Branch:  dc8120f (Commits)  Commit:  dc8120fd74f1d65a812e96c33afc9a8ca9a0bc8e 
Dependencies:  Stopgaps: 
Description (last modified by )
Implement combinatorial (unordered) rooted trees
This is done using ordered rooted trees as data structure, and recursive normalization.
Attachments (1)
Change History (97)
comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by
 Dependencies changed from #11407 to #11407, #10194
 Description modified (diff)
 Status changed from new to needs_review
Changed 7 years ago by
comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage5.11 to sage5.12
comment:4 Changed 4 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.1 to sage6.2
comment:5 Changed 4 years ago by
Florent, is this the latest patch from the sagecombinat queue ? If not, it would be good to refresh, so that one can start working on it here.
comment:6 Changed 4 years ago by
 Branch set to u/chapoton/11529
 Commit set to bad859055dcfc8e014125b31e25702359d6e462a
comment:7 Changed 4 years ago by
 Commit changed from bad859055dcfc8e014125b31e25702359d6e462a to f0bd1323350839e28c20e43d6e813e73b4880278
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
f0bd132  trac #11529 minor details

comment:8 Changed 4 years ago by
 Commit changed from f0bd1323350839e28c20e43d6e813e73b4880278 to 5a15e0796b249344ef66b5a6f9a1d7e1a17107f7
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
5a15e07  trac #11529 trying to make it work

comment:9 Changed 4 years ago by
 Commit changed from 5a15e0796b249344ef66b5a6f9a1d7e1a17107f7 to 5849b284ed4e139efebc38a8f1d7bbf8a09e301b
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
5849b28  trac #11529 tests seem to pass

comment:10 Changed 4 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.2 to sage6.3
comment:11 Changed 4 years ago by
 Commit changed from 5849b284ed4e139efebc38a8f1d7bbf8a09e301b to 0047c1acc3c446c706c76d98033b75569d14494d
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
0047c1a  Merge branch 'u/chapoton/11529' of ssh://trac.sagemath.org:22/sage into 11529

comment:12 Changed 4 years ago by
 Commit changed from 0047c1acc3c446c706c76d98033b75569d14494d to ca7005437d488c5a036eff909ddec4bf501b2c62
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
ca70054  Merge branch 'u/chapoton/11529' of ssh://trac.sagemath.org:22/sage into 11529

comment:13 Changed 4 years ago by
 Commit changed from ca7005437d488c5a036eff909ddec4bf501b2c62 to be21430e31d03f77405df68b91f83e90352aaac1
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
be21430  trac #11529 two more useful methods

comment:14 Changed 4 years ago by
 Commit changed from be21430e31d03f77405df68b91f83e90352aaac1 to 6bf100e78976d7c56b5ba8843b40e80dec3265ad
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
6bf100e  trac #11529 make tests pass

comment:15 Changed 4 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.3 to sage6.4
comment:16 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 6bf100e78976d7c56b5ba8843b40e80dec3265ad to 9aa6ab2d1927fcc526a186d0025e96068476702f
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
9aa6ab2  Merge branch 'u/chapoton/11529' of trac.sagemath.org:sage into 6.5.b5

comment:17 Changed 3 years ago by
 Branch changed from u/chapoton/11529 to u/chapoton/11529_alone
 Cc tscrim darij added
 Commit changed from 9aa6ab2d1927fcc526a186d0025e96068476702f to a4b4c6ee3ce9f82864e3b179380517ff123582ef
 Dependencies changed from #11407, #10194 to #11407
 Milestone changed from sage6.4 to sage6.5
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
I have removed the dependency to the ticket #10194. Now progress is possible here.
There is current interest in this matter, see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sagecombinatdevel/oi4VtGr1g5A
New commits:
dd078fa  Merge branch 'u/chapoton/11529' into 6.5.rc3

a4b4c6e  trac #11529 Remove dependency to set factories

comment:18 followup: ↓ 19 Changed 3 years ago by
These are (rooted) trees modulo permutation of children, right? I'm asking because I don't see much of a documentation here.
(Let me add that I have never seen them called "Cayley trees" in my life. This notation contradicts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethe_lattice and http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CayleyTree.html .)
comment:19 in reply to: ↑ 18 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to darij:
These are (rooted) trees modulo permutation of children, right? I'm asking because I don't see much of a documentation here.
From looking at the code and the normalize()
doctest, that is right (i.e., they are not ordered/planer trees). I think we need to expand the documentation before this can get into Sage.
(Let me add that I have never seen them called "Cayley trees" in my life. This notation contradicts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethe_lattice and http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CayleyTree.html .)
+1 from me to removing this terminology (at least for now since Cayley trees aren't implemented).
comment:20 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from a4b4c6ee3ce9f82864e3b179380517ff123582ef to b8f8004bae8ebff79b313c571a64c81aba89281a
comment:21 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from b8f8004bae8ebff79b313c571a64c81aba89281a to 76f695772807e9cad8d48a6fb0fc14e78289a2aa
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
76f6957  trac #11529 inclusion of doc into table of contents, etc

comment:22 Changed 3 years ago by
OK. Are you sure on_fly
is a good idea? It behaves nondeterministically:
sage: OT = OrderedTree sage: OT([[[],[]], [[],[],[]]]).normalize() [[[], []], [[], [], []]] sage: OT([[[],[],[]], [[],[]]]).normalize() [[[], []], [[], [], []]] sage: Exiting Sage (CPU time 0m0.29s, Wall time 1m31.05s). skraeling@angband ~/sage $ ./sage ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sage Version 6.5.rc1, Release Date: 20150208 │ │ Type "notebook()" for the browserbased notebook interface. │ │ Type "help()" for help. │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓ ┃ Warning: this is a prerelease version, and it may be unstable. ┃ ┗━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛ sage: OT = OrderedTree sage: OT([[[],[],[]], [[],[]]]).normalize() [[[], [], []], [[], []]] sage: OT([[[],[]], [[],[],[]]]).normalize() [[[], [], []], [[], []]]
Is this what we want? And does it behave well in regard to the other features of our tree classes, such as the clone
context manager?
If we just want a comparison method for normalization, we can compare two trees "lexicographically" by number of children, number of children of the leftmost child, etc.. If we want an actual ranker, then this is not enough...
Also, the doc of LabelledRootedTrees
says that this class is a parent stub to be inherited from by classes of labelled rooted trees with specific properties; but the unlabelled_trees
and cardinality
methods look like they are specific to the class of *all* labelled rooted trees. Shouldn't they go into LabelledRootedTrees_all
?
comment:23 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 76f695772807e9cad8d48a6fb0fc14e78289a2aa to ac7687a92a4b288aa58ba140515da7f1e5f357b4
comment:24 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from ac7687a92a4b288aa58ba140515da7f1e5f357b4 to 3e619b011df83fe7782a2b31c35354f1dd4dfda6
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
3e619b0  trac #11529 more doc again

comment:25 Changed 3 years ago by
Hello,
concerning the ranker, I do not care about the possible nondeterministic aspect. There is no clear canonical way to generate and number all rooted trees, so there is no best choice.
concerning the methods of LabelledRootedTrees
, well, there is no LabelledRootedTrees_all
. And I do not think one need that for now.
At some point later, it would be good to have classes for labelled rooted trees with labels in a fixed set. So far, all possible labels are allowed. This is needed for operads.
It is true that the content of this ticket is rather minimalistic. But it is enough for #15635, which is my main motivation.
comment:26 Changed 3 years ago by
OK, I am not saying that this nondeterminism is bad, but I think it is avoidable in this specific setting. When it comes to building combinatorial Hopf algebras, I don't want to have to harden all the doctests because a change somewhere else might lead to all trees getting rotated. What do you think about my deterministic normalization method in public/combinat/11529 ?
comment:27 Changed 3 years ago by
 Branch changed from u/chapoton/11529_alone to public/combinat/11529
 Commit changed from 3e619b011df83fe7782a2b31c35354f1dd4dfda6 to 5219d2e4ef7c38fe5ce7a40289cdc118cac2bff3
New commits:
5219d2e  deterministic normalization of rooted ordered trees

comment:28 Changed 3 years ago by
This proposal of yours will not work (at least in its current state) for labelled rooted trees. Besides, if I remember well (this is already a few years old), the recursive approach was tried and rejected for being slower than the ranker approach.
comment:29 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 5219d2e4ef7c38fe5ce7a40289cdc118cac2bff3 to 14a8d8b995df1562750441027f0cc3560cf8e061
comment:30 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 14a8d8b995df1562750441027f0cc3560cf8e061 to c1aca706fd40900e59024f19a4e29fe190fd65f2
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:
c1aca70  reverting changes, keeping dendrographical order

comment:31 Changed 3 years ago by
Ah, I see. I've reinstated your definition of normalization, while keeping mine as a method for doctesting pruposes.
comment:32 followup: ↓ 33 Changed 3 years ago by
+ with self.clone() as t: + t.append(other) + resu = t + return resu
Why not remove the "resu = t" line and just return t? I'm wondering because I'm not sure if my understanding of the clone context manager is correct.
Also, is it OK if I split LabelledRootedTrees
into an abstract base class and a concrete class?
comment:33 in reply to: ↑ 32 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to darij:
+ with self.clone() as t: + t.append(other) + resu = t + return resuWhy not remove the "resu = t" line and just return t? I'm wondering because I'm not sure if my understanding of the clone context manager is correct.
Yes, I guess one can return t. I am not very sure either to understand the clone mantra.
Also, is it OK if I split
LabelledRootedTrees
into an abstract base class and a concrete class?
Yes, please do as you want, but try to keep things simple enough for me :)
comment:34 Changed 3 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.5 to sage6.6
comment:35 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from c1aca706fd40900e59024f19a4e29fe190fd65f2 to 44d4e924423f122e9c485bc93d292e63fa098d7b
comment:36 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 44d4e924423f122e9c485bc93d292e63fa098d7b to ac12f31827a5073a4f03fe6cc4db8e7714e51603
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
ac12f31  more edits

comment:37 Changed 3 years ago by
Is this:
tst = (children.__class__ is self.__class__ and children.parent() == parent) if not tst: children = [self.__class__(parent, x) for x in children]
supposed to catch the case of children
being a rooted tree? Because I'm not sure I understand the logic. childen
is a list; maybe you want x.__class__ for x in children
instead of children.__class__
?
Also, as usual, I don't understand the classcall metaclass magic, so I am just reading past it.
comment:38 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from ac12f31827a5073a4f03fe6cc4db8e7714e51603 to 1c3bfeab259395574fd0fdc3c4653415600448fc
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
1c3bfea  another doctest

comment:39 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 1c3bfeab259395574fd0fdc3c4653415600448fc to ce230e2caa809deb6ac90ece8ce6e3717848827b
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
ce230e2  further edits

comment:40 Changed 3 years ago by
 Reviewers set to Frederic Chapoton, Darij Grinberg,
OK, almost positive_review. I leave the following functions to someone who understands our OOP better:
RootedTree.__classcall_private__
RootedTree.__init__
(see also http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/11529#comment:37 )
RootedTree.normalize
LabelledRootedTree.__classcall_private__
comment:41 Changed 3 years ago by
I will try to take a look at them over the weekend (unless someone beats me to it).
comment:42 Changed 3 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
 Keywords Cayley removed
comment:43 Changed 3 years ago by
 Reviewers changed from Frederic Chapoton, Darij Grinberg, to Frédéric Chapoton, Darij Grinberg,
comment:44 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from ce230e2caa809deb6ac90ece8ce6e3717848827b to 554020502657566ed334823ac0d36e39b2fcb22d
comment:45 Changed 3 years ago by
 Reviewers changed from Frédéric Chapoton, Darij Grinberg, to Frédéric Chapoton, Darij Grinberg, Travis Scrimshaw
I made some minor changes, so if you're happy with them, then positive review since the class heirachy looks good. (Sorry it's almost the following weekend.)
comment:46 followup: ↓ 47 Changed 3 years ago by
The changes look OK to me (except I still don't understand the
if not (children.__class__ is self.__class__ and children.parent() == parent):
check). What about you, Frederic?
Thank you for looking at this, Travis!
comment:47 in reply to: ↑ 46 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to darij:
The changes look OK to me (except I still don't understand the
if not (children.__class__ is self.__class__ and children.parent() == parent):check).
That is making sure that the children are also rooted subtrees of the same parent (you can think of it like a linked list, but instead of a separate class for nodes, it links to a smaller list).
Thank you for looking at this, Travis!
The least I could do.
comment:48 followup: ↓ 49 Changed 3 years ago by
But isn't children
a list by the moment this check is happening?
comment:49 in reply to: ↑ 48 Changed 3 years ago by
comment:50 Changed 3 years ago by
Maybe. Would you suggest fixing it or just blanket casting children
to the appropriate class?
comment:51 Changed 3 years ago by
I'd comment out the if
and do the blanket casting. Want me to do it?
comment:52 Changed 3 years ago by
Yeah, I'm slowly going to bed so I'd rather not fire up the virtual machine. Feel free to set this to positive_review then!
comment:53 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 554020502657566ed334823ac0d36e39b2fcb22d to 1c377ad3988c9ac47e54922a6722fd714b2a7e3d
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
1c377ad  One last fix for a unless check.

comment:55 Changed 3 years ago by
just as a general PSA, i'm not merging tickets that are milestone: sagepending
comment:56 Changed 3 years ago by
sorry, wrong ticket ;)
comment:57 Changed 3 years ago by
Followup ticket at #15635
comment:58 Changed 3 years ago by
Hello Volker :)
comment:59 Changed 3 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.6 to sage6.7
comment:60 Changed 3 years ago by
 Dependencies #11407 deleted
Don't make pregit tickets a dependency if you want auutomatic merging to work...
comment:61 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
Conflict, probably with #18179
comment:62 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 1c377ad3988c9ac47e54922a6722fd714b2a7e3d to eeb2487181515d62efb4551e1ac98fb2c0125ab9
comment:63 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
comment:64 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
If you didn't get a conflict then the conflict was elsewhere. Try 6.7.beta1
comment:65 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from eeb2487181515d62efb4551e1ac98fb2c0125ab9 to 05a15fd83d9d9000be2591bfaa3a35fdf4b34379
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
05a15fd  manual merge with 6.7.beta1, fixing the conflict in sage/combinat/ordered_tree.py

comment:66 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
comment:67 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
Damn, there is a failing doctest !
comment:68 Changed 3 years ago by
I am working on that..
comment:69 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 05a15fd83d9d9000be2591bfaa3a35fdf4b34379 to 4234b0403bd321e9da5d64f59650f52b56074d37
comment:70 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
ok, I have got rid of ranker, so that the order is now deterministic.
Maybe it will be slow, but speed can be taken care later on.
I have tried to use cached_method for the sort_key function, but it does not interact well with the ClonableTree? setup.
The patchbot should be happy, let us see.
comment:71 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 4234b0403bd321e9da5d64f59650f52b56074d37 to 27c586dd6b4b05cefd80cb5ffbfc145a3b565541
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
27c586d  partial review; ensure that labelled trees get normalized correctly if their children have equal shapes

comment:72 Changed 3 years ago by
Stupid question: If a class inherits both from LabelledOrderedTree
and another subclass of OrderedTree
, then is there a way to tell which class's sort_key
method it will get? Because if it gets it from OrderedTree
, then its normalization won't work properly (sort_key
will ignore the labels).
Same for methods such as left_right_symmetry
.
comment:73 Changed 3 years ago by
Well, I do not know. Do you think that it matters for the present ticket ?
By the way, do you you want to keep the "dendrographical" stuff ?
comment:74 Changed 3 years ago by
I am slightly biased towards keeping things that work  or do you see the dendrographical stuff as broken in some way? (When we get to combinatorial Hopf algerbas based on trees and transfers between different bases, every order will be useful...)
I don't know if the double inheritance (MRO) issue is a problem; this is why I'm asking. I would default to adding some warnings into the docstring, but I know of some people that are allergic to my warnings, and some other people who might find them not sufficient, so I prefer to ask...
comment:75 Changed 3 years ago by
No problem, let us keep the 'dendrographical' stuff. The name sounds somewhat funny to me.
I am not sure I see the point on warning about issues that look not very likely to be met in the near future. But if you want to add them, I will not resist.
My aim now is to have this ticket in, as soon as possible, so that I can start to work on the algebraic followup ticket #15635.
comment:76 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 27c586dd6b4b05cefd80cb5ffbfc145a3b565541 to a190d1f1f16ccab76ac2812c5b9a923ed6ff3e9c
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
a190d1f  some weasel words I feel uncomfortable without

comment:77 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from a190d1f1f16ccab76ac2812c5b9a923ed6ff3e9c to 99f6de56e5d8bc4b834d4d22abb0303560103b32
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
99f6de5  review patch

comment:78 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 99f6de56e5d8bc4b834d4d22abb0303560103b32 to dc0ebfeb5a185b5a1ab3bedfbe2f786ca6de0965
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
dc0ebfe  also improve the doc of left_right_symmetry

comment:79 Changed 3 years ago by
Done. Are you OK with my changes?
I've added documentation for the pitfall I have mentioned in comment:72. Generally, I think Sage is lacking many warnings and implementation notes that would make it easier (or even possible) to extend from the existing classes as opposed to implementing new things from scratch because one doesn't understand the old classes' structure. In many cases, they would also help the reviewers review the patches (although in the current case this was simple enough).
I'm also waiting for #15635 to be ready, but alas I cannot help with the coercion :(
comment:80 Changed 3 years ago by
ok, the bot is happy. Darij, I agree with your changes (even if they make me think about the keyword "verbosity").
So, please put that into positive review, if you want ?
comment:82 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
On 32bit:
sage t long src/sage/combinat/rooted_tree.py ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/combinat/rooted_tree.py", line 259, in sage.combinat.rooted_tree.RootedTree.__hash__ Failed example: hash(RT([[],[[]]])) # indirect doctest Expected: 2578595415271398032 Got: 1119083152 ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/combinat/rooted_tree.py", line 891, in sage.combinat.rooted_tree.LabelledRootedTree.__hash__ Failed example: hash(lb) # indirect doctest Expected: 686798862222558969 Got: 652936953 ********************************************************************** 2 items had failures: 1 of 3 in sage.combinat.rooted_tree.LabelledRootedTree.__hash__ 1 of 3 in sage.combinat.rooted_tree.RootedTree.__hash__ [155 tests, 2 failures, 1.79 s]
comment:83 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from dc0ebfeb5a185b5a1ab3bedfbe2f786ca6de0965 to 811a7975d60133f5bd9e69be251982f04939f5a8
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
811a797  fix two hash docstrings

comment:84 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
Good call  I don't know how I missed them.
comment:85 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
No, no ! This hash should be different for 32 and 64 bits !
comment:86 Changed 3 years ago by
You mean "should be" or "is"? What is going on here? Why should a hash (computed via sort_key) be machinedependent?
comment:87 Changed 3 years ago by
The hash is different. See many places, for example:
sage: F = CombinatorialFreeModule(QQ, ['a','b','c']) sage: B = F.basis() sage: f = B['a'] + 3*B['c'] sage: hash(f) 6429418278783588506 # 64bit 726440090 # 32bit
comment:88 Changed 3 years ago by
Oh! Should it be marked #random?
comment:89 Changed 3 years ago by
No, it should have the two possible answers as in the example above.
comment:90 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 811a7975d60133f5bd9e69be251982f04939f5a8 to dc8120fd74f1d65a812e96c33afc9a8ca9a0bc8e
comment:91 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
good for me on 64bit
comment:92 Changed 3 years ago by
Thank you!
comment:93 followup: ↓ 94 Changed 3 years ago by
The easier test to make sure the hash is working is to do something like hash(x) == hash(x)
(unless of course you're expecting a specific value, like hash(1) == 1
), and it doesn't cause trivial doctest failures for changes to the hash function, but it probably doesn't really matter here.
comment:94 in reply to: ↑ 93 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to tscrim:
The easier test to make sure the hash is working is to do something like
hash(x) == hash(x)
(unless of course you're expecting a specific value, likehash(1) == 1
), and it doesn't cause trivial doctest failures for changes to the hash function, but it probably doesn't really matter here.
If you use the same x
then you are not testing anything serious. A good test would be hash(x) == hash(y)
with x
and y
two distinct but equal objects.
Florent which is coming back to Sage after a long absence.
By the way : Tanks to all of you for finishing this one !
comment:95 Changed 3 years ago by
comment:96 Changed 3 years ago by
 Branch changed from public/combinat/11529 to dc8120fd74f1d65a812e96c33afc9a8ca9a0bc8e
 Resolution set to fixed
 Status changed from positive_review to closed
Patch cannot be applied. If this is just because of the unfinished #10194 (I don't know the current status of that), then it can be set back to "need review".