easy reviews for Sage 4.1.1.final

Minh Nguyen

unread,

Aug 11, 2009, 2:06:46 PM8/11/09

to sage-...@googlegroups.com

Hi folks,

sage: So, mvngu. What have you been doing these last few days?
mvngu: Fixing some trivial bugs in Sage.
sage: Were they technical bugs?
mvngu: Not really. Just trivial typos and minor spelling mistakes.
sage: You spent three days on that?
mvngu: Yeah, pretty much.
sage: Why? Didn't you have anything better to do? Those are the sort
of bugs that any casual user could point out, right?
mvngu: Yep. It's really that easy to contribute to Sage. You don't
have to be a 1337 programmer to do so. And most of the time, it's the
quality of a project's documentation that is important to many users.
sage: It's good to know that there are people who care about the
quality of my documentation.

The moral of the story is: There are some dozen tickets available to
improve the quality of the documentation. The full list is below.
These should be "easy" to review.

--
Regards
Minh Van Nguyen

William Stein

unread,

Aug 11, 2009, 2:12:38 PM8/11/09

to sage-...@googlegroups.com

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Minh Nguyen <nguye...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi folks,

sage: So, mvngu. What have you been doing these last few days?
mvngu: Fixing some trivial bugs in Sage.
sage: Were they technical bugs?
mvngu: Not really. Just trivial typos and minor spelling mistakes.
sage: You spent three days on that?
mvngu: Yeah, pretty much.
sage: Why? Didn't you have anything better to do? Those are the sort
of bugs that any casual user could point out, right?
mvngu: Yep. It's really that easy to contribute to Sage. You don't
have to be a 1337 programmer to do so. And most of the time, it's the
quality of a project's documentation that is important to many users.
sage: It's good to know that there are people who care about the
quality of my documentation.

The moral of the story is: There are some dozen tickets available to
improve the quality of the documentation. The full list is below.
These should be "easy" to review.

I'll referee them. Thanks!!!!

William

--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org

Marshall Hampton

unread,

Aug 11, 2009, 3:30:14 PM8/11/09

to sage-devel

I'll try to do a few too. Btw, I have an easy to review patch
at:http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6543 that brings tachyon
coverage to 100%. If anyone can review that, I would appreciate it.

-Marshall

On Aug 11, 1:12 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Minh Nguyen <nguyenmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks,
>
> > sage: So, mvngu. What have you been doing these last few days?
> > mvngu: Fixing some trivial bugs in Sage.
> > sage: Were they technical bugs?
> > mvngu: Not really. Just trivial typos and minor spelling mistakes.
> > sage: You spent three days on that?
> > mvngu: Yeah, pretty much.
> > sage: Why? Didn't you have anything better to do? Those are the sort
> > of bugs that any casual user could point out, right?
> > mvngu: Yep. It's really that easy to contribute to Sage. You don't
> > have to be a 1337 programmer to do so. And most of the time, it's the
> > quality of a project's documentation that is important to many users.
> > sage: It's good to know that there are people who care about the
> > quality of my documentation.
>
> > The moral of the story is: There are some dozen tickets available to
> > improve the quality of the documentation. The full list is below.
> > These should be "easy" to review.
>
> I'll referee them. Thanks!!!!
>
> William
>
>
>
>
>
> > #6687http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6687

Marshall Hampton

unread,

Aug 11, 2009, 3:47:40 PM8/11/09

to sage-devel

I noticed you changed "pyrex" to "Pyrex", which is fine, but should
this just be changed to "Cython" everywhere? Do we ever use plain
Pyrex as opposed to Cython?

-Marshall

> #6736http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6736

William Stein

unread,

Aug 11, 2009, 3:49:49 PM8/11/09

to sage-...@googlegroups.com

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Marshall Hampton <hamp...@gmail.com> wrote:

I noticed you changed "pyrex" to "Pyrex", which is fine, but should
this just be changed to "Cython" everywhere? Do we ever use plain
Pyrex as opposed to Cython?

Yes, it should be changed to "Cython" everywhere. But I think this would be best done as a single complete patch.

wstein$ sage -grep pyrex |wc -l
67

William

Minh Nguyen

unread,

Aug 11, 2009, 3:51:42 PM8/11/09

to sage-...@googlegroups.com

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:49 AM, William Stein<wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Marshall Hampton <hamp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I noticed you changed "pyrex" to "Pyrex", which is fine, but should
>> this just be changed to "Cython" everywhere? Do we ever use plain
>> Pyrex as opposed to Cython?
>
> Yes, it should be changed to "Cython" everywhere. But I think this would be
> best done as a single complete patch.
>
> wstein$ sage -grep pyrex |wc -l
> 67

It's on my todo list.

Minh Nguyen

unread,

Aug 11, 2009, 4:06:02 PM8/11/09

to sage-...@googlegroups.com

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:49 AM, William Stein<wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>

> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Marshall Hampton <hamp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I noticed you changed "pyrex" to "Pyrex", which is fine, but should
>> this just be changed to "Cython" everywhere? Do we ever use plain
>> Pyrex as opposed to Cython?
>
> Yes, it should be changed to "Cython" everywhere. But I think this would be
> best done as a single complete patch.
>
> wstein$ sage -grep pyrex |wc -l
> 67

This is now ticket #6737

http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6737

Minh Nguyen

unread,

Aug 13, 2009, 12:37:15 PM8/13/09

to sage-...@googlegroups.com

Hi folks,

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Minh Nguyen<nguye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> sage: So, mvngu. What have you been doing these last few days?
> mvngu: Fixing some trivial bugs in Sage.
> sage: Were they technical bugs?
> mvngu: Not really. Just trivial typos and minor spelling mistakes.
> sage: You spent three days on that?
> mvngu: Yeah, pretty much.
> sage: Why? Didn't you have anything better to do? Those are the sort
> of bugs that any casual user could point out, right?
> mvngu: Yep. It's really that easy to contribute to Sage. You don't
> have to be a 1337 programmer to do so. And most of the time, it's the
> quality of a project's documentation that is important to many users.
> sage: It's good to know that there are people who care about the
> quality of my documentation.
>
> The moral of the story is: There are some dozen tickets available to
> improve the quality of the documentation. The full list is below.
> These should be "easy" to review.

Thank you to all people who have volunteered so far to review many of
the spell-check tickets. In particular, a big thank you to Burcin
Erocal, Marshall Hampton, Mitesh Patel, William Stein, Chris Wuthrich.

However, the following still needs review:

#6714 http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6714
#6715 http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6715
#6718 http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6718
#6721 http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6721
#6722 http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6722

#6724 http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6724
#6726 http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6726

#6728 http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6728
#6730 http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6730

#6733 http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6733
#6734 http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6734

Also, on the reviewing list is the blocker ticket #6645

http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6645

I'm pretty happy with the changes proposed in the ticket. But
another/different opinion would be be very helpful as it affects the
building of the documentation when running "make test" with a binary
version of Sage.

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward