Opened 6 years ago
Closed 6 years ago
#22160 closed enhancement (fixed)
Use centralized references in ClusterSeed
Reported by: | etn40ff | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-7.6 |
Component: | documentation | Keywords: | documentation, days82 |
Cc: | gmoose05, drupel, stumpc5, tscrim, egunawan | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Salvatore Stella | Reviewers: | Emily Gunawan, Travis Scrimshaw |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | b787c1c (Commits, GitHub, GitLab) | Commit: | b787c1cfa8303a5302fe3998eaa270a2126ac9fe |
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
While reviewing #21254 egunawan found a double reference due to the fact that ClusterSeed
still has references defined locally.
This ticket fixes the issue.
Change History (28)
comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by
- Branch set to public/ticket/22160
- Commit set to 04f4244474d651adc9eacfa1303bba31e591900f
comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by
- Commit changed from 04f4244474d651adc9eacfa1303bba31e591900f to 175b53aa7054b9483f12747da3b27dc4b8ee32af
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
175b53a | I can\'t even remember the lexicographic order!
|
comment:4 Changed 6 years ago by
- Keywords days82 added
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_info
There are several more local references in cluster_seed.py. We should move them to index.rst as well?
comment:5 Changed 6 years ago by
I think we should just move them all at once.
comment:6 Changed 6 years ago by
Agreed, I did not notice them. I'll work on it in one hour or so.
comment:7 Changed 6 years ago by
- Commit changed from 175b53aa7054b9483f12747da3b27dc4b8ee32af to 976b736920f2ddbeb473440d7e71d304e0d885fa
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
976b736 | Moved all references
|
comment:8 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
comment:9 Changed 6 years ago by
- Commit changed from 976b736920f2ddbeb473440d7e71d304e0d885fa to 474750e709dfb6d23b5eb99d856690fa4e74c4fb
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
474750e | Added missing references
|
comment:10 Changed 6 years ago by
There is a typo but I am recompiling on a different branch and I can't fix it right now. I should be able to mend the problem as soon as the documentation is done building.
comment:11 Changed 6 years ago by
- Commit changed from 474750e709dfb6d23b5eb99d856690fa4e74c4fb to b3ced177ba29c0b81c3bc0b6071fdc7d5e27ac9d
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
b3ced17 | Fix typo
|
comment:12 Changed 6 years ago by
Fixed, it should be good now.
comment:13 Changed 6 years ago by
- Component changed from PLEASE CHANGE to documentation
- Reviewers set to Travis Scrimshaw
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
LGTM.
comment:14 Changed 6 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-7.5 to sage-7.6
- Reviewers changed from Travis Scrimshaw to Emily Gunawan, Travis Scrimshaw
comment:15 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_info
There are other references to actual websites (or arxiv numbers) in cluster_seed.py and other parts of the cluster_algebra_quiver folder. This will not cause issue for Sage, but, since this ticket was already opened, should we move those local references as well?
comment:16 Changed 6 years ago by
- Commit changed from b3ced177ba29c0b81c3bc0b6071fdc7d5e27ac9d to 29cc90a37869d74e20f5f5c05a4c04a5812b3b2c
comment:17 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
I now changed also all the references in every file under the folder cluster_algebra_quiver. They were in a messy variety of different styles.
comment:18 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
We should be good and make sure those references have full bib information. For example, I suspect the Speyer reference has been published in a journal.
comment:19 Changed 6 years ago by
I already did that. I could not find better references for [Spe2013]_ nor for [Ke2008]_. I did fix many of the others.
comment:20 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:21 Changed 6 years ago by
Okay, thanks. I will let Emily set it back to a positive review of there is nothing else.
comment:22 Changed 6 years ago by
- Commit changed from 29cc90a37869d74e20f5f5c05a4c04a5812b3b2c to c71e227f6808318cc36feab49c2b0ed1ad8b009d
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
c71e227 | 22160: fix broken reference to see sage.graphs.generic_graph.GenericGraph.canonical_label()
|
comment:23 Changed 6 years ago by
Salvatore, you can set this to positive_review if you're OK with the change I just did (fixing a broken reference to GenericGraph?.canonical_label).
comment:26 Changed 6 years ago by
- Commit changed from c71e227f6808318cc36feab49c2b0ed1ad8b009d to b787c1cfa8303a5302fe3998eaa270a2126ac9fe
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
49dc8b8 | Use centralized references
|
318d348 | I can\'t even remember the lexicographic order!
|
71149f7 | Moved all references
|
dbf7100 | Added missing references
|
591fbc0 | Fix typo
|
2b395ee | Changed all the remaining references in the cluster_algebra_quiver folder
|
4a0c541 | Minor fixes
|
be62a45 | 22160: fix broken reference to see sage.graphs.generic_graph.GenericGraph.canonical_label()
|
b787c1c | Fixed merge conflict
|
comment:27 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
I rebased the branch to the current develop. This and some other ticket introduced two new references in the same place generating the conflict. It should be good now.
comment:28 Changed 6 years ago by
- Branch changed from public/ticket/22160 to b787c1cfa8303a5302fe3998eaa270a2126ac9fe
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
New commits:
Use centralized references