Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix numerical noise after #16858 #17063

Closed
jdemeyer opened this issue Sep 28, 2014 · 9 comments
Closed

Fix numerical noise after #16858 #17063

jdemeyer opened this issue Sep 28, 2014 · 9 comments

Comments

@jdemeyer
Copy link

Component: doctest coverage

Author: Jeroen Demeyer

Branch/Commit: 23c88bc

Reviewer: Frédéric Chapoton

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17063

@jdemeyer jdemeyer added this to the sage-6.4 milestone Sep 28, 2014
@jdemeyer
Copy link
Author

Author: Jeroen Demeyer

@jdemeyer
Copy link
Author

Branch: u/jdemeyer/ticket/17063

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor

comment:3

Well, this looks good to me.

But maybe there is something subtle to check ? on different architectures, etc ?

The buildbot is almost happy, but protests for some other reasons..


New commits:

23c88bcFix tolerances

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor

Commit: 23c88bc

@jdemeyer
Copy link
Author

jdemeyer commented Oct 5, 2014

comment:4

Replying to @fchapoton:

Well, this looks good to me.

Meaning positive_review?

But maybe there is something subtle to check ? on different architectures, etc ?

Of course there is. There are lots of different architectures. However, this ticket does not have to fix all doctests on all possible architectures.

The buildbot is almost happy, but protests for some other reasons..

The buildbot is broken, you can ignore those failures.

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor

Reviewer: Frédéric Chapoton

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor

comment:5

I think this is good to go, because this only let the precision be slightly lower than before. So it can not introduce any new failing doctest, in principle.

Am I correct to say that this is in particular needed to cure some of the buildbot failures ?

Let me give a positive review, even if the blocker status is rather worrying to me. I hope I did not miss the point.

@jdemeyer
Copy link
Author

jdemeyer commented Oct 8, 2014

comment:6

Replying to @fchapoton:

Am I correct to say that this is in particular needed to cure some of the buildbot failures ?

Not buildbot failures, but reports from other people on the sage-release mailing list.

Let me give a positive review, even if the blocker status is rather worrying to me.

The "blocker" priority shouldn't matter for reviewing the ticket. "blocker" means that Sage 6.4 must not be released before this issue is fixed, it doesn't imply that the issue is particularly deep or difficult.

@vbraun
Copy link
Member

vbraun commented Oct 9, 2014

Changed branch from u/jdemeyer/ticket/17063 to 23c88bc

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants