# Revision history [back]

Here are some points:

• https://ask.sagemath.org is a good place to report such a bug
• then someone (you, or someone else), should open a ticket on https://trac.sagemath.org
• then someone (else or not) should report upstream and modify the trac field "Report Upstream" to "reported upstream, no feedback yet"
• this field should be updated ("developpers acknowledge bug", etc) until the problem is fixed upstream
• when we got the fix (usualy after a package update), we add a doctest on the ticket so that if the problem reappears, then we could immediately see the regression (not all upstream libraries have a testing framework). In your particular case, it is also interesting to compare different algorithms.

Such workflow is much safer than directly reporting upstream.

Here are some points:

• https://ask.sagemath.org is a good place to report such a bug
• then someone (you, or someone else), should open a ticket on https://trac.sagemath.org
• then someone (else or not) should report upstream and modify the trac field "Report Upstream" to "reported upstream, no feedback yet"
• this field should be updated ("developpers acknowledge bug", etc) until the problem is fixed upstream
• when we got the fix (usualy after a package update), we add a doctest on the ticket so that if the problem reappears, then we could immediately see the regression (not all upstream libraries have a testing framework). In your particular case, it is also interesting to compare different algorithms.

Such workflow is much safer than directly reporting upstream.upstream, where the information can get lost.

Here are some points:

• https://ask.sagemath.org is a good place to report such a bug
• then someone (you, or someone else), should open a ticket on https://trac.sagemath.orghttps://trac.sagemath.org even if you know that the problem comes from an upstream library
• then someone (else or not) should report upstream and modify the trac field "Report Upstream" to "reported upstream, no feedback yet"
• this field should be updated ("developpers acknowledge bug", etc) until the problem is fixed upstream
• when we got the fix (usualy after a package update), we add a doctest on the ticket so that if the problem reappears, then we could immediately see the regression (not all upstream libraries have a testing framework). In your particular case, it is also interesting to compare different the result with other algorithms.

Such workflow is much safer than directly reporting upstream, where the information can get lost.

Regarding the current issue, thanks for reporting, the two issues are tracked as trac ticket 25822 and trac ticket 25823

Do not hesitate to modify the tickets, report upstream, follow the history, and write a doctest that will benefit both to Sage, giac and maxima !

Here are some points:

• https://ask.sagemath.org is a good place to report such a bug
• then someone (you, or someone else), should open a ticket on https://trac.sagemath.org even if you know that the problem comes from an upstream library
• then someone (else or not) should report upstream and modify the trac field "Report Upstream" to "reported upstream, no feedback yet"
• this yet". It is better that the commands are done directly on upstream's interface, so that it is cler for upstream that it is not an issue with sagemath interfacing and so that they can reproduce it easily.
• the "Report Upstream" field should be updated ("developpers acknowledge bug", etc) until the problem is fixed upstreamupstream [particular case: if upstream does not recognize the bug, then we will have to patch ourselves]
• when we got the fix (usualy after a package update), we add a doctest on the ticket so that if the problem reappears, then we could immediately see the regression (not all upstream libraries have a testing framework). In your particular case, it is also interesting to compare the result with other algorithms.

Such workflow is much safer than directly reporting upstream, where the information can get lost.lost or forgotten.

Regarding the current issue, thanks for reporting, the two issues are tracked as trac ticket 25822 and trac ticket 25823

Do not hesitate to modify the tickets, report upstream, follow the history, and write a doctest that will benefit both to Sage, giac and maxima !

Here are some points:

• https://ask.sagemath.org is a good place to report such a bugbug (especially for newcommers who might be impressed by opening a ticket)
• then someone (you, or someone else), should open a ticket on https://trac.sagemath.org even if you know that the problem comes from an upstream library
• then someone (else or not) should report upstream and modify the trac field "Report Upstream" to "reported upstream, no feedback yet". It is better that the commands are done directly on upstream's interface, so that it is cler for upstream that it is not an issue with sagemath interfacing and so that they can reproduce it easily.
• the "Report Upstream" field should be updated ("developpers acknowledge bug", etc) until the problem is fixed upstream [particular case: if upstream does not recognize the bug, then we will have to patch ourselves]
• when we got the fix (usualy after a package update), we add a doctest on the ticket so that if the problem reappears, then we could immediately see the regression (not all upstream libraries have a testing framework). In your particular case, it is also interesting to compare the result with other algorithms.

Such workflow is much safer than directly reporting upstream, where the information can get lost or forgotten.

Regarding the current issue, thanks for reporting, the two issues are tracked as trac ticket 25822 and trac ticket 25823

Do not hesitate to modify the tickets, report upstream, follow the history, and write a doctest that will benefit both to Sage, giac and maxima !

Here are some points:

• https://ask.sagemath.org is a good place to report such a bug (especially for newcommers who might be impressed by opening a ticket)
• then someone (you, or (possibly someone else), should open a ticket on https://trac.sagemath.org even if you know that the problem comes from an upstream library
• then someone (else or not) should report upstream and modify the trac field "Report Upstream" to "reported upstream, no feedback yet". It is better that the commands are done directly on upstream's interface, so that it is cler for upstream that it is not an issue with sagemath interfacing and so that they can reproduce it easily.
• the "Report Upstream" field should be updated ("developpers acknowledge bug", etc) until the problem is fixed upstream [particular case: if upstream does not recognize the bug, then we will have to patch ourselves]
• when we got the fix (usualy after a package update), we add a doctest on the ticket so that if the problem reappears, then we could immediately see the regression (not all upstream libraries have a testing framework). In your particular case, it is also interesting to compare the result with other algorithms.

Such workflow is much safer than directly reporting upstream, where the information can get lost or forgotten.

Regarding the current issue, thanks for reporting, the two issues are tracked as trac ticket 25822 and trac ticket 25823

Do not hesitate to modify the tickets, report upstream, follow the history, and write a doctest that will benefit both to Sage, giac and maxima !

Here are some points:

• https://ask.sagemath.org is a good place to report such a bug (especially for newcommers who might be impressed by opening a ticket)
• then someone (possibly someone else), should open a ticket on https://trac.sagemath.org even if you they know that the problem comes from an upstream library
• then someone (else or not) should report upstream and modify the trac field "Report Upstream" to "reported upstream, no feedback yet". It is better that the commands are done directly on upstream's interface, so that it is cler for upstream that it is not an issue with sagemath interfacing and so that they can reproduce it easily.
• the "Report Upstream" field should be updated ("developpers acknowledge bug", etc) until the problem is fixed upstream [particular case: if upstream does not recognize the bug, then we will have to patch ourselves]
• when we got the fix (usualy after a package update), we add a doctest on the ticket so that if the problem reappears, then we could immediately see the regression (not all upstream libraries have a testing framework). In your particular case, it is also interesting to compare the result with other algorithms.

Such workflow is much safer than directly reporting upstream, where the information can get lost or forgotten.

Regarding the current issue, thanks for reporting, the two issues are tracked as trac ticket 25822 and trac ticket 25823

Do not hesitate to modify the tickets, report upstream, follow the history, and write a doctest that will benefit both to Sage, giac and maxima !

Here are some points:

• https://ask.sagemath.org is a good place to report such a bug (especially for newcommers who might be impressed by opening a ticket)
• then someone (possibly someone else), should open a ticket on https://trac.sagemath.org even if they know that the problem comes from an upstream library
• then someone (else or not) should report upstream and modify the trac field "Report Upstream" to "reported upstream, no feedback yet". It is better that the commands leading t the error are done typed directly on upstream's interface, so that it is cler clear for upstream that it is not an issue with sagemath interfacing and so that they can reproduce it easily.
• the "Report Upstream" field should be updated ("developpers acknowledge bug", etc) until the problem is fixed upstream [particular case: if upstream does not recognize the bug, then we will have to patch ourselves]
• when we got the fix (usualy (usually after a package update), we add a doctest on the ticket so that if the problem reappears, then we could immediately see the regression (not all upstream libraries have a testing framework). In your particular case, it is also interesting to compare the result with other algorithms.

Such workflow is much safer than directly reporting upstream, where the information can get lost or forgotten.

Regarding the current issue, thanks for reporting, the two issues are tracked as trac ticket 25822 and trac ticket 25823

Do not hesitate to modify the tickets, report upstream, follow the history, and write a doctest that will benefit both to Sage, giac and maxima !

Here are some points:

• https://ask.sagemath.org is a good place to report such a bug (especially for newcommers who might be impressed by opening a ticket)
• then someone (possibly someone else), should open a ticket on https://trac.sagemath.org even if they know that the problem comes from an upstream library
• then someone (else or not) should report upstream and modify the trac field "Report Upstream" to "reported upstream, no feedback yet". It is better that the commands leading t the error are typed directly on upstream's interface, so that it is clear for upstream that it is not an issue with sagemath interfacing and so that they can reproduce it easily.
• the "Report Upstream" field should be updated ("developpers acknowledge bug", etc) until the problem is fixed upstream [particular case: if upstream does not recognize the bug, then we will have to patch ourselves]
• when we got the fix (usually after a package update), we add a doctest on the ticket so that if the problem reappears, then we could immediately see the regression (not all upstream libraries have a testing framework). In your particular case, it is also interesting to compare the result with other algorithms.

Such workflow is much safer than directly reporting upstream, where the information can get lost or forgotten.

Regarding the current issue, thanks for reporting, the two issues are tracked as trac ticket 25822 and trac ticket 25823

Do not hesitate to modify the tickets, report upstream, follow the history, and write a doctest that will benefit both to Sage, giac and maxima !

Regarding the place to report upstream bugs for each library, ther is an Upstream Contact field on the SPKG.txt file of each package directory, which is SAGE_ROOT/build/pkgs/<package_name>

 10 No.10 Revision slelievre 12406 ●11 ●121 ●247 http://carva.org/samue...

Here are some points:

• https://ask.sagemath.org is a good place to report such a bug bugs (especially for newcommers newcomers who might be impressed by opening a ticket)ticket),
• then someone (possibly (the same person or possibly someone else), else) should open a ticket on https://trac.sagemath.org even if they know that the problem comes from an upstream librarylibrary,
• then someone (else or not) should report upstream and modify the trac field "Report Upstream" to "reported "Reported upstream, no feedback yet". It is better that if the commands leading t to the error are typed directly on upstream's interface, so that it is clear for upstream that it is not an issue with sagemath interfacing the SageMath interface, and so that they can reproduce it easily.easily,
• the "Report Upstream" field should be updated ("developpers ("Developers acknowledge bug", etc) until the problem is fixed upstream [particular case: if upstream does not recognize the developers deny it's a bug, then we will have to patch ourselves]ourselves],
• when we got the fix (usually after a package update), we add a doctest on the ticket so that if the problem reappears, then we could immediately see the regression (not all upstream libraries have a testing framework). In your particular case, it is also interesting to compare the result with other algorithms.

Such workflow is much safer than directly Compared to only reporting upstream, where the information can get lost or forgotten.this workflow ensures tracking on the SageMath side.

Regarding the current issue, issues in the question, thanks for reporting, the two issues are now tracked as trac Sage Trac ticket 25822 and trac Sage Trac ticket 25823.

Do not hesitate to modify the tickets, report upstream, follow the history, and write a doctest that will benefit both to Sage, giac and maxima !Sage and Giac or Maxima!

Regarding the place to report upstream bugs for each library, ther there is an Upstream Contact field on the SPKG.txt file of each package directory, which is SAGE_ROOT/build/pkgs/<package_name>

, and can be browsed online at:

Here are some points:

• https://ask.sagemath.org is a good place to report such bugs (especially for newcomers who might be impressed by opening a ticket),
• then someone (the same person or possibly someone else) should open a ticket on https://trac.sagemath.org even if they know that the problem comes from an upstream library,
• then someone (else or not) should report upstream and modify the trac field "Report Upstream" to "Reported upstream, no feedback yet". It is better if the commands leading to the error are typed directly on upstream's interface, so that it is clear for upstream that it is not an issue with the SageMath interface, and so that they can reproduce it easily,
• the "Report Upstream" field should be updated ("Developers acknowledge bug", etc) until the problem is fixed upstream [particular case: if upstream developers deny it's a bug, then we have to patch ourselves],
• when we got the fix (usually after a package update), we add a doctest on the ticket so that if the problem reappears, then we could immediately see the regression (not all upstream libraries have a testing framework). In your particular case, it is also interesting to compare the result with other algorithms.

Compared to only reporting upstream, this workflow ensures tracking on the SageMath side.

Regarding the issues in the question, thanks for reporting, the two issues are now tracked as Sage Trac ticket 25822 and Sage Trac ticket 25823.

Do not hesitate to modify the tickets, report upstream, follow the history, and write a doctest that will benefit both Sage and Giac or Maxima!

Regarding the place to report upstream bugs for each library, there is an Upstream Contact field on the SPKG.txt file of each package directory, which is SAGE_ROOT/build/pkgs/<package_name>, and can be browsed online at:

• EDIT: note that those bugs are now fixed !