better document sage.el

[williamstein]

The page here http://www.sagemath.org/emacs has a file sage.el that is slightly modified from the ipython.el file. The documentation of this fact should be clearly stated in the file sage.el, along with some instructions about how to use it and the above URL.

Somebody could fix this and attach the fixed sage.el to this ticket.

Component: user interface

Author: Ivan Andrus

Reviewer: Karl-Dieter Crisman

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/1861

[williamstein]

comment:1

By the way, this bug was reported by Dan Grayson.

[gvol]

comment:3

This has been superseded by the optional sage-mode spkg.

[kcrisman]

comment:4

Plus, there isn't even an emacs page at sagemath.org any more. http://wiki.sagemath.org/sage-mode is the new place to go. It does have a lot better documentation.

To be pedantic, I would point out that the current (0.6) spkg doesn't actually say that this is inherited from ipython.el. It is sort of implied in sage-mode-0.6/old/README.txt; is that enough?

[gvol]

comment:5

Since we don't use the old directory anymore (I'm planning to remove it in the next release), and I'm pretty sure the new stuff isn't derived from ipython.el I think this should be closed as won't fix.

[kcrisman]

comment:6

Okay, I'll say that's okay as long as (to honor this ticket) somewhere in the documentation, wiki, bitbucket, whatever, there is a place that says this was inspired by ipython.el originally. Sound good? I'll put that on #13176, which is for upgrading to 0.7.

[kcrisman]

Reviewer: Ivan Andrus, Karl-Dieter Crisman

[gvol]

comment:7

I updated the wiki, and SPKG.txt.

[kcrisman]

comment:8

Great, this is an immediate improvement on the wiki, and 0.8 has this as well. Putting back to a "normal" milestone since #13176 is slightly more complex.

[kcrisman]

Author: Ivan Andrus

[kcrisman]

Changed reviewer from Ivan Andrus, Karl-Dieter Crisman to Karl-Dieter Crisman

[jdemeyer]

comment:9

Replying to @kcrisman:

Great, this is an immediate improvement on the wiki, and 0.8 has this as well. Putting back to a "normal" milestone since #13176 is slightly more complex.

So, this has positive_review but no patch and not a duplicate? What is it then?

[kcrisman]

comment:10

It's sort of like when someone opens a ticket to do something on Trac itself (create a new report, let's say). Here, updating the wiki and having upstream incorporate this last thing in all future versions was sufficient. After all, the original ticket was just to change a webpage - no patch was really required there.

If you'd really like, I can make a patch from the changeset and these others, attach them here, and we can wait until Ivan actually releases another one or something, but according to the original issue, the changes at the wiki are already more than sufficient. Basically, I figure that the person who actually makes things easier to figure out deserves at least some credit.

[jdemeyer]

comment:11

Okay, that's clear.