Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
#9901 closed defect (fixed)
update pynac to 0.2.1
Reported by: | burcin | Owned by: | burcin |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-4.6 |
Component: | symbolics | Keywords: | pynac |
Cc: | mpatel | Merged in: | sage-4.6.alpha3 |
Authors: | Burcin Erocal | Reviewers: | Karl-Dieter Crisman |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
There is a new pynac version available with patches for #9394, #9834, #9878, #9879, #9881, #9900.
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/burcin/pynac/pynac-0.2.1.spkg
Patches from the tickets mentioned above need to be merged to test this.
This package depends on the patches available at #9394, #9878, #9879, #9881, #9900. In turn, the first one of these (#9394) depends on #8568 because of changes in sage/symbolic/random_tests.py
. The following patches should be applied before running tests:
- attachment:trac_8568-diff_conversion.take2.patch:ticket:8568
- attachment:trac_8568-erf-deriv.patch:ticket:8568
- attachment:trac_8568-fix_doctests.patch:ticket:8568
- attachment:trac_9394-leading_minus.patch:ticket:9394
- attachment:trac_9878-zeta_infinity.patch:ticket:9878
- attachment:trac_9879-hold.patch:ticket:9879
- attachment:trac_9881-csgn.patch:ticket:9881
- attachment:trac_9900_conjugate_doctests.patch:ticket:9900
Change History (10)
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by
Most of the changesets are pretty obviously related to the tickets in question, and I'll put comments there. Here are a few things which I will put here for archiving which came up in discussion, because a few changesets in Pynac are nonobvious.
> As far as Pynac is concerned: > > "Do not generate function.{h,cpp} automatically." How do I check > this? What is the reasoning for this? How do you test this in the > Sage library (say, for 13 arguments), as it probably should be? Why > do you keep it for (say) 3, but not 4? You can't check this in the Sage library. The auto generated calls were something we inherited from GiNaC as a convenience for programming in C++. Since we use Python, which uses a function call mechanism very similar to the vector arguments case GiNaC supports, there is no reason to keep the auto generated functions. I kept the calls up to 3, since functions implemented in GiNaC use at least up to 2. I don't know if there is anything which needs 3. > Are some of these things items you would want to report upstream? I > am thinking of the conjugate handling, for instance, or the unsigned > infinity. Maybe they come from upstream? > Changeset 172 - what is that all about? It just deletes some files from the mercurial repository. They are generated by autoconf. William just imported everything in the GiNaC distribution tarball when he started working on pynac. This is just cleaning up some of that cruft.
Incidentally, we also note that the conjugate handling change came from upstream.
comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Karl-Dieter Crisman
Update for release manager: positive review for all but #9879 and #9900. #9879 awaits a review of the reviewer patch (just because it's somewhat long), and #9900 will be positive review once the reviewer creates a reviewer patch, hopefully sometime tomorrow.
Also, although the Pynac website doesn't mention these changes yet, the changesets ARE available here, so it is on the web and not just in Sage :)
comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by
- Cc mpatel added
comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by
comment:7 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:8 Changed 9 years ago by
Is there a special order in which I should merge the Pynac tickets?
comment:9 Changed 9 years ago by
I just did them in numerical order when I tried them. Since the ticket #8568 is already closed, I guess that means
- attachment:trac_9394-leading_minus.patch:ticket:9394
- attachment:trac_9878-zeta_infinity.patch:ticket:9878
- attachment:trac_9879-hold.patch:ticket:9879
- attachment:trac_9879-hold-review.patch:ticket:9879
- attachment:trac_9881-csgn.patch:ticket:9881
- attachment:trac_9881-csgn-reviewer.patch:ticket:9881
- attachment:trac_9900_conjugate_doctests-rebase.patch:ticket:9900
- attachment:trac_9900-reviewer.patch:ticket:9900
That order should work.
comment:10 Changed 9 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-4.6.alpha3
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
Thanks!
I'm going to try (!) to review all this soon. Just a point: the Pynac website has no mention of this update.