Opened 10 years ago

Closed 10 years ago

Last modified 10 years ago

#11798 closed defect (fixed)

typo in the documentation of weierstrass_points

Reported by: zimmerma Owned by: mvngu
Priority: trivial Milestone: sage-4.7.2
Component: documentation Keywords: ecc2011
Cc: defeo Merged in: sage-4.7.2.alpha3
Authors: Paul Zimmermann Reviewers: Luca De Feo
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: Commit:
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Status badges

Description (last modified by zimmerma)

sage: K = pAdicField(11, 5)
sage: x = polygen(K)
sage: C = HyperellipticCurve(x^5 + 1)
sage: C.weierstrass_points?
       in the suport of the divisor of $y$

Here, suport should be support.

Apply trac11798.patch to the Sage library.

Attachments (1)

trac11798.patch (864 bytes) - added by zimmerma 10 years ago.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (8)

Changed 10 years ago by zimmerma

comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by zimmerma

  • Authors set to Paul Zimmermann
  • Status changed from new to needs_review

The attached patch fixes that critical bug.

comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by defeo

  • Cc defeo added
  • Reviewers set to Luca De Feo
  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

Wonderful spell checking!

comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by zimmerma

  • Keywords ecc2011 added

comment:4 in reply to: ↑ description Changed 10 years ago by leif

  • Description modified (diff)

Replying to zimmerma:

Note: I have created that ticket to show how to create a patch and submit it to trac during the ECC 2011 summer school. Thus please don't work on this ticket!

Sorry, Paul, I have to, since the patch to be applied is not mentioned in the ticket's description, which is good practice, and also necessary for at least some bots or release tools which partially automate the process. (In case there are multiple patches which have to be applied, they should be listed in the order in which they have to be applied.)

To potentially new contributors / Sage developers:

It isn't bad to choose filenames that at least partially reflect what a patch does, or to which component / defect etc. it belongs; also, using the comment field of attachments isn't bad, e.g. to note to which repository a patch has to be applied, which version of Sage it was based on, and maybe also there what a patch does, etc.

As Paul did, the filenames of patches should start with trac_<ticket number> (or, less often used, trac<ticket number>), and the commit message should contain (best start with) the ticket number on its first line, e.g. #11798 ... or Trac 11798: ... or the like.

comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by leif

P.S.: Some might consider this redundant (at least in cases where there's only one patch, and which has to be applied to the "default" repository, i.e., the one of the Sage libary), but a little redundancy is good to avoid errors when automating things.

If there are multiple patches attached to a ticket, listing them (or just the single proper one to be applied) in the correct order in the ticket's description is IMHO mandatory, since humans would also like to immediately have this information (as opposed to reading and reasoning about potentially many comments on the ticket).

Also, the URLs of new / updated spkgs provided by a ticket should always be part of the ticket's description.

comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by leif

  • Merged in set to sage-4.7.2.alpha3
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed

comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by zimmerma

  • Description modified (diff)

thank you Leif for your comments! I forgot to update the description after my demonstration.


Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.