-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 435
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
Replace all :trac: with :issue: in docstrings #37390
Conversation
Perhaps not to do in this PR, but I was thinking of changing "github issue" to just "issue". For example,
is changed to
We may redefine |
No problem (if we could avoid merge conflicts). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Passes test. LGTM.
re:
Yeah, this could be done. Although there's probably a non-trivial amount of people who do not know what an "issue" is and "GitHub issue" might help newcomers better understand the docstrings from within Sage? |
In the trac era, it was "trac #7797". I liked it :-) |
I have no strong opinions. Whatever is decided we can do in a new PR? |
I am collecting opinions. If a few collected opinions are supportive for the change, yes we can do it in a new PR. If not clearly supportive, a poll may be necessary on sage-devel. Thanks for your opinion. |
Please don't do "Github issue". It is a lot of text with extremely little extra value. I would hope that non-developers do not see such notices unless they are using deprecated functionality. In this case it comes with a complete link. |
Yes, I also prefer "Issue #7797" (capitalized) |
merge conflict |
@vbraun This PR is very likely to incur merge conflicts. So could you consider making a beta only for this PR? That is, you release next beta, and then we rebase this PR to the beta, and then you immediately merge this PR and release a new beta. |
This will fix the merge conflicts: diff --cc src/sage/rings/complex_arb.pyx
index 4ee2ec45015,31d1baf0f38..46c01da4eb6
--- a/src/sage/rings/complex_arb.pyx
+++ b/src/sage/rings/complex_arb.pyx
@@@ -4792,18 -4792,14 +4792,14 @@@ cdef class ComplexBall(RingElement)
sage: n = CBF(1,1)
sage: m = CBF(-2/3, 3/5)
- sage: n.elliptic_pi_inc(CBF.pi()/2, m) # arb216
- [0.8934793755173 +/- ...e-14] + [0.95707868710750 +/- ...e-15]*I
- sage: n.elliptic_pi_inc(CBF.pi()/2, m) # arb218 - this is a regression, see :issue:28623
- sage: n.elliptic_pi_inc(CBF.pi()/2, m) # this is a regression, see :trac:28623
++ sage: n.elliptic_pi_inc(CBF.pi()/2, m) # this is a regression, see :issue:28623
nan + nan*I
sage: n.elliptic_pi(m)
[0.8934793755173...] + [0.957078687107...]*I
sage: n = CBF(2, 3/7)
sage: m = CBF(-1/3, 2/9)
- sage: n.elliptic_pi_inc(CBF.pi()/2, m) # arb216
- [0.2969588746419 +/- ...e-14] + [1.3188795332738 +/- ...e-14]*I
- sage: n.elliptic_pi_inc(CBF.pi()/2, m) # arb218 - this is a regression, see :issue:28623
- sage: n.elliptic_pi_inc(CBF.pi()/2, m) # this is a regression, see :trac:28623
++ sage: n.elliptic_pi_inc(CBF.pi()/2, m) # this is a regression, see :issue:28623
nan + nan*I
sage: n.elliptic_pi(m)
[0.296958874641...] + [1.318879533273...]*I |
@vbraun Please merge this to 10.3.rc3. |
Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit ad8fe87; changes) is ready! 🎉 |
Following the PR sagemath#37385, I have replaced all occurrences of `:trac:` with `:issue:`. If changing so much in one PR is wrong and this should be done file by file while working on other functions feel free to close this PR. URL: sagemath#37390 Reported by: Giacomo Pope Reviewer(s): Giacomo Pope, Kwankyu Lee
e417e22
<!-- ^^^^^ Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title. Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below. For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to calculate 1+1" --> <!-- Describe your changes here in detail --> As discussed in sagemath#37390 (comment), we change how Sphinx role ``:issue:`` is rendered. For example, short ``` By Issue sagemath#7797, there is a different implementation ... ``` instead of current ``` By github issue sagemath#7797, there is a different implementation ... ``` Arguments for the short form are > Please don't do "Github issue". It is a lot of text with extremely little extra value. > In the trac era, it was "trac sagemath#7797". <!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? --> <!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For example "Fixes sagemath#12345". --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately. --> ### 📝 Checklist <!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. --> <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately --> <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> <!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. --> - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies <!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on - sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency - sagemath#34567: ... --> <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> URL: sagemath#37403 Reported by: Kwankyu Lee Reviewer(s): Travis Scrimshaw
Following the PR #37385, I have replaced all occurrences of
:trac:
with:issue:
.If changing so much in one PR is wrong and this should be done file by file while working on other functions feel free to close this PR.