Sage 10.0 released

[Volker Braun]

The "master" git branch has been updated to Sage-10.0. As always, you can get the latest beta version from the "develop" git branch. Alternatively, the self-contained source tarball is at http://www.sagemath.org/download-latest.html

As you are undoubtedly aware, this version is the first since the migration of the development process to github. A big thanks to everyone who was involved, we couldn't have done it without you 🎉🚀

6ba0eafc2ca (tag: 10.0, github/develop) Updated SageMath version to 10.0
8476c469588 gh-35460: Update developer guide for workflows on github
4ed2157cd2a gh-35638: build/pkgs/python3/spkg-configure.m4: Add depcheck for zlib
9de8c5b1b6c gh-35637: remark that WSL needs a lot of RAM
f2f5863c08a (tag: 10.0.rc3) Updated SageMath version to 10.0.rc3

[Kwankyu Lee]

Congratulations!

[Matthias Köppe]

Thanks for preparing the release!

I have created a changelog at https://github.com/sagemath/sage/releases/tag/10.0 (automatically generated from the merged PRs by GitHub; then lightly edited). 

Some notes:

- The list of "New Contributors" was also automatically generated by GitHub. It did not know the contributors of previous versions. I've manually removed many of these lines when I recognized the username. There may be others that should be removed from this list; let me know.

- We do not have clean Author/Reviewer information on all of our PRs. The changelog only shows the GitHub handle of the user who created the PR. 

- I will no longer create a text version of the changelog in the traditional format (e.g. https://www.sagemath.org/changelogs/sage-9.8.txt), as it provides no added value. The script to generate the changelog (https://github.com/sagemath/sage-changelogs; now archived) no longer works, as it was using the Trac server. 

[François Bissey]

I am preparing the sage-on-gentoo release. I just noticed the file
sage/graphs/bliss.pyx
is missing from the pypi tarball of sagemath-standard.
I have a feeling I will find it in the sage-bliss package. However I did
not notice that the splitting of sage-bliss was live in the 10.0rc*. Is
this a mistake?

Cheers,
François

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-release" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-release...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:sage-release...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-release/48dea2b5-d56c-4191-b1e8-518b03f6aac2n%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-release/48dea2b5-d56c-4191-b1e8-518b03f6aac2n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Samuel Lelièvre]

Congratulations to Volker and to all Sage contributors
on the new release.

2023-05-21 01:00 UTC, Matthias Köppe:

>
> I have created a changelog at
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/releases/tag/10.0
> (automatically generated from the merged PRs by GitHub;
> then lightly edited).

Thanks.

> Some notes:
>
> - The list of "New Contributors" was also automatically generated
> by GitHub. It did not know the contributors of previous versions.
> I've manually removed many of these lines when I recognized
> the username. There may be others that should be removed
> from this list; let me know.

Here is one way to detect a few. By hovering over
the github handles in the "new contributors" list at

- https://github.com/sagemath/sage/releases/tag/10.0

one can get (or guess) some names:

- @Sandstorm831: Rohan Garg
- @MatteoCati: Matteo Cati
- @zovelsanj: Sanjay Rijal
- @kryzar: Antoine Leudière
- @minaminao: minaminao
- @jnash10: Agamdeep Singh
- @thecaligarmo: Aram Dermenjian
- @wermos: Tirthamkar Mazumder
- @prirai: Priyanshu Kumar Rai
- @mathcals: Sander
- @remyoudompheng: Rémy Oudompheng
- @Eloitor: Eloi Torrents
- @MatanZ: Matan Ziv-Av
- @karan0handa: Karan Handa
- @yukibl: Yuki
- @alexhutman: Alex Hutman
- @aadya940: Aadya Chinubhai
- @fingolfin: Max Horn
- @marizee: Marie Bonboire

Then, grepping the past changelogs reveals
a few previous contributions:

```shell
$ git clone https://github.com/sagemath/website.git sagemath-website

$ cd sagemath-website/src/changelogs

$ grep -i "Matteo Cati" *.txt
sage-9.8.txt: - Matteo Cati [first contribution]

$ grep -i "Antoine Leudière" *.txt
sage-9.7.txt: - Antoine Leudière [first contribution]

$ grep -i "Aram Dermenjian" *.txt
sage-6.9.txt: - Aram Dermenjian [first contribution]

$ grep -i "Rémy Oudompheng" *.txt
sage-9.7.txt: - Rémy Oudompheng [first contribution]

$ grep -i "Max Horn" *.txt
sage-9.4.txt: - Max Horn [first contribution]
```

Besides, some users might have had a Sage Trac username
similar to their github handle, or have used github authentication
to contribute to Sage Trac, so it would be nice to be able
to search Trac, if it was restored (even readonly).

> - We do not have clean Author/Reviewer information
> on all of our PRs. The changelog only shows
> the GitHub handle of the user who created the PR.

This is a sad loss of the new system. For instance,
#35571 is authored by Thierry Monteil, and reviewed
by Matthias Köppe, even though the PR was created
by Dima Pasechnik.

> - I will no longer create a text version
> of the changelog in the traditional format (e.g.
> https://www.sagemath.org/changelogs/sage-9.8.txt),
> as it provides no added value.

I strongly disagree with "as it provides no added value".

The traditional changelogs do provide added value:

- the changelogs, as text files, are very searchable
(see above for detecting previous contributions!)
- they give a nice overview of what went into
each development release and final release
- they name authors and reviewers for each ticket

Many other free software projects maintain changelogs
as text files (which might point to their added value too).

> The script to generate the changelog
> (https://github.com/sagemath/sage-changelogs;
> now archived) no longer works, as it was using
> the Trac server.

This is a sad loss.

I found Trac's searchability vastly superior to GitHub's,
despite some claims to the contrary in the "campaign"
to ditch Trac and move to GitHub a while ago.

I am still bitter about how that campaign went,
and about the result, but hey that happened.

Happy Sage development to all anyway. --Samuel

[Dima Pasechnik]

something is again off with the DOI records for Sagemath, the latest
is still shown as 9.7.
Also, https://github.com/sagemath/sage/blob/develop/CITATION.cff
is off, and still refers to 9.5.

(sorry, I didn't check this for 9.8)

Dima

[Dima Pasechnik]

probably, related to
https://github.com/citation-file-format/citation-file-format/issues/374

[Dima Pasechnik]

This is now https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/35659

[Matthias Köppe]

On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 3:55:18 AM UTC-7 François Bissey wrote:

I am preparing the sage-on-gentoo release. I just noticed the file
sage/graphs/bliss.pyx
is missing from the pypi tarball of sagemath-standard.

I have a feeling I will find it in the sage-bliss package. However I did
not notice that the splitting of sage-bliss was live in the 10.0rc*. Is
this a mistake?

Sorry about this. Two possible courses of action:

1) Prepare a sagemath-standard-10.0.post1 distribution that ships bliss.pyx (other probably missing files such as mcqd.pyx)

2) Prepare the sagemath-bliss-10.0 etc. packages (https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/34346)

I will work on 2) unless there are good reasons for 1)

[Matthias Köppe]

Thanks for working on this. I've removed these 5 from the "New contributors" list.

 

Besides, some users might have had a Sage Trac username
similar to their github handle, or have used github authentication
to contribute to Sage Trac, so it would be nice to be able
to search Trac, if it was restored (even readonly).

We have been very careful about preserving ALL information from Trac.

A lot of thought and hard work has gone into this.

Specifically, all username mappings were migrated to https://www.sagemath.org/development-map.html

> - We do not have clean Author/Reviewer information
> on all of our PRs. The changelog only shows
> the GitHub handle of the user who created the PR.

This is a sad loss of the new system.

Also on Trac the Author/Reviewer information was not automagically created.

The authors and reviewers had to manually put their names in the corresponding fields.

We just need to build this into our new workflow. 

For example, in the PR template we could include something like

"Authors (if not the same as the PR author): ......."

For instance,
#35571 is authored by Thierry Monteil, and reviewed
by Matthias Köppe, even though the PR was created
by Dima Pasechnik.

Thanks, I've updated the release notes accordingly.

[Matthias Köppe]

On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 5:44:35 AM UTC-7 Samuel Lelievre wrote:

> - I will no longer create a text version
> of the changelog in the traditional format (e.g.
> https://www.sagemath.org/changelogs/sage-9.8.txt),
> as it provides no added value.

I strongly disagree with "as it provides no added value".

The traditional changelogs do provide added value:

- the changelogs, as text files, are very searchable
(see above for detecting previous contributions!)
- they give a nice overview of what went into
each development release and final release
- they name authors and reviewers for each ticket

Many other free software projects maintain changelogs
as text files (which might point to their added value too).

I'm not opposed to creating such changelogs. I'm just announcing that I will not be working on it.

In fact, https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/31533 proposes to "Migrate old Sage release tours and changelogs from Sage website and wiki to Sage documentation".

That may be something that people who perceive an added value in text changelogs may be movtivated to work on.

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Sun, 21 May 2023, 19:37 Matthias Köppe, <matthia...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 5:44:35 AM UTC-7 Samuel Lelievre wrote:

> - I will no longer create a text version
> of the changelog in the traditional format (e.g.
> https://www.sagemath.org/changelogs/sage-9.8.txt),
> as it provides no added value.

I strongly disagree with "as it provides no added value".

"git log" does a good job of searching the history.

I think each ticket/PR can be found there.

The traditional changelogs do provide added value:

- the changelogs, as text files, are very searchable
(see above for detecting previous contributions!)
- they give a nice overview of what went into
each development release and final release
- they name authors and reviewers for each ticket

Many other free software projects maintain changelogs
as text files (which might point to their added value too).

I'm not opposed to creating such changelogs. I'm just announcing that I will not be working on it.

In fact, https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/31533 proposes to "Migrate old Sage release tours and changelogs from Sage website and wiki to Sage documentation".

That may be something that people who perceive an added value in text changelogs may be movtivated to work on.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-release" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-release...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-release/e629d2ca-a338-4108-812c-168786e2089en%40googlegroups.com.

[Matthias Köppe]

On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 1:18:09 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:

On Sun, 21 May 2023, 19:37 Matthias Köppe, <matthia...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 5:44:35 AM UTC-7 Samuel Lelievre wrote:

> - I will no longer create a text version
> of the changelog in the traditional format (e.g.
> https://www.sagemath.org/changelogs/sage-9.8.txt),
> as it provides no added value.

I strongly disagree with "as it provides no added value".

"git log" does a good job of searching the history.

I think each ticket/PR can be found there.

In particular, "git log --first-parent upstream/develop" shows just the merge commits for each PR / ticket. This includes all PR / ticket descriptions in full.

 

[François Bissey]

Ok on work on (2), it is just annoying for it to happen post release
rather being able to prepare for it prior to it. And you are right it
probably affects all the optional stuff, bliss is the one I caught
because I include patch for the newer bliss. And patch complained that
the file to patch doesn't exist.

François

[François Bissey]

sage-on-gentoo 10.0 is out sans bliss and meataxe options for now.

[Matthias Köppe]

Now available:

- https://pypi.org/project/sagemath-tdlib/10.0/

- https://pypi.org/project/sagemath-meataxe/10.0/

- https://pypi.org/project/sagemath-coxeter3/10.0/

- https://pypi.org/project/sagemath-bliss/10.0/

- https://pypi.org/project/sagemath-mcqd/10.0/

- https://pypi.org/project/sagemath-sirocco/10.0/

Built using https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/35661, which needs review

[Emmanuel Charpentier]

FWIW, on Debian testing running on core i5 + 8 GB RAM, upgrading 10.0.rc2 to 10.0 passes ptestlong with no failures (transient nor permanent).

Yay !

HTH,

[Emmanuel Charpentier]

On a slightly larger machine (core i7 + 16 GB RAM, Debian testing) with more optional packages installed, I get :

• Two transient failures (timeouts) :

sage -t --long --warn-long 220.0 --random-seed=70054243461324019656106910472128436065 src/sage/rings/tests.py # Timed out sage -t --long --warn-long 220.0 --random-seed=70054243461324019656106910472128436065 src/sage/interfaces/maxima.py # Timed out

• and three permanent failures, two of them having been already reported a couple of times (or more…) :

sage -t --long --warn-long 220.0 --random-seed=70054243461324019656106910472128436065 src/sage/coding/linear_code.py # 2 doctests failed sage -t --long --warn-long 220.0 --random-seed=70054243461324019656106910472128436065 src/sage/coding/code_constructions.py # 1 doctest failed

• the third one is new :

sage -t --long --warn-long 220.0 --random-seed=70054243461324019656106910472128436065 src/sage/repl/ipython_kernel/kernel.py # 1 doctest failed

but I have already met it and it seems unrelated to Sage itself.

HTH,

​

[Emmanuel Charpentier]

Wups ! Incorrect link to the Jupyter kernel problem. See rather here…

Sorry for the noise…

​

[axio...@yahoo.de]

Would it be possible to update the documentation on sagemath.org? It seems that it is still 9.8.

[Harald Schilly]

On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 9:35 AM 'axio...@yahoo.de' via sage-release <sage-r...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Would it be possible to update the documentation on sagemath.org? It seems that it is still 9.8.

Yes, it's not only possible, but actually has been done: https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/index.html

Thx for pinging me, Dima.

-- Harald

[axio...@yahoo.de]

Thank you so much!

(reason is a FPSAC 23 software demo, which contains a link to the doc)

Best wishes,

Martin