Opened 14 years ago

Closed 10 years ago

#1861 closed enhancement (fixed)

better document sage.el

Reported by: was Owned by: was
Priority: minor Milestone: sage-5.2
Component: user interface Keywords:
Cc: Merged in:
Authors: Ivan Andrus Reviewers: Karl-Dieter Crisman
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: Commit:
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Status badges


The page here has a file sage.el that is slightly modified from the ipython.el file. The documentation of this fact should be clearly stated in the file sage.el, along with some instructions about how to use it and the above URL.

Somebody could fix this and attach the fixed sage.el to this ticket.

Change History (12)

comment:1 Changed 14 years ago by was

By the way, this bug was reported by Dan Grayson.

comment:2 Changed 13 years ago by AlexGhitza

  • Type changed from defect to enhancement

comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by iandrus

  • Milestone changed from sage-5.1 to sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
  • Report Upstream set to N/A
  • Status changed from new to needs_review

This has been superseded by the optional sage-mode spkg.

comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by kcrisman

Plus, there isn't even an emacs page at any more. is the new place to go. It does have a lot better documentation.

To be pedantic, I would point out that the current (0.6) spkg doesn't actually say that this is inherited from ipython.el. It is sort of implied in sage-mode-0.6/old/README.txt; is that enough?

comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by iandrus

Since we don't use the old directory anymore (I'm planning to remove it in the next release), and I'm pretty sure the new stuff isn't derived from ipython.el I think this should be closed as won't fix.

comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by kcrisman

  • Reviewers set to Ivan Andrus, Karl-Dieter Crisman
  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

Okay, I'll say that's okay as long as (to honor this ticket) somewhere in the documentation, wiki, bitbucket, whatever, there is a place that says this was inspired by ipython.el originally. Sound good? I'll put that on #13176, which is for upgrading to 0.7.

comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by iandrus

I updated the wiki, and SPKG.txt.

comment:8 follow-ups: Changed 10 years ago by kcrisman

  • Authors set to Ivan Andrus
  • Milestone changed from sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix to sage-5.2
  • Priority changed from major to minor
  • Reviewers changed from Ivan Andrus, Karl-Dieter Crisman to Karl-Dieter Crisman

Great, this is an immediate improvement. Putting back to a "normal" milestone since #13176 is slightly more complex.

Version 0, edited 10 years ago by kcrisman (next)

comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 8 Changed 10 years ago by jdemeyer

Replying to kcrisman:

Great, this is an immediate improvement on the wiki, and 0.8 has this as well. Putting back to a "normal" milestone since #13176 is slightly more complex.

So, this has positive_review but no patch and not a duplicate? What is it then?

comment:10 Changed 10 years ago by kcrisman

It's sort of like when someone opens a ticket to do something on Trac itself (create a new report, let's say). Here, updating the wiki and having upstream incorporate this last thing in all future versions was sufficient. After all, the original ticket was just to change a webpage - no patch was really required there.

If you'd really like, I can make a patch from the changeset and these others, attach them here, and we can wait until Ivan actually releases another one or something, but according to the original issue, the changes at the wiki are already more than sufficient. Basically, I figure that the person who actually makes things easier to figure out deserves at least some credit.

comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 8 Changed 10 years ago by jdemeyer

Okay, that's clear.

comment:12 Changed 10 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.