On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:25 AM, vivek dogra <
address@hidden> wrote:
> Okay, i have made changes to the interp1 function to check for strictly
> monotonicity (which it was not doing earlier, although it is written in the
> documentation). So i have a patch for the bug#36732: interp1 does not check
> input for monotonicity.
>
> I would like to ask how can i submit the patch. I went through the link
> provided above
>
http://octave.org/wiki/index.php?title=Mercurial_(hg)_cheat_sheet
> but i am not able to understand it properly.
> I would appreciate proper guidance. Thank you.
>
> Regards,
> Vivek.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Ben Abbott <
address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 25, 2012, at 2:59 AM, vivek dogra wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Ben Abbott <
address@hidden> wrote:
>> > On Jul 24, 2012, at 4:27 AM, vivek dogra wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hello,
>> > > Recently Mr.Francesco Potortì reported a bug in the use of interp1.
>> > >
https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?36732
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > This one should give an error:
>> > >
>> > > interp1([1:5 4:9], 1:11, 4)
>> > >
>> > > In fact, it gives out 4. The first argument is not checked.
>> > >
>> > > Also, the documentation should say "strictly monotonic" where it
>> > > currently says "monotonic".
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > > I contacted Mr. Potorti and as far as we know this bug hasn't been
>> > > fixed. So I would like to offer myself to fix the same. Please let me know
>> > > how should i go about it.
>> > >
>> > > With regards,
>> > > Vivek Dogra
>> >
>> > The status of the work on bugs should be recorded on the bug tracker.
>> > It does not appear that any work has been done on this bug yet, so you are
>> > free to work on it. Please enter a comment on the tracker to let others
>> > know you've begun working on it. That will help avoid duplicate efforts.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Ben
>> >
>> > Should i just comment where the bug is reported (which i have already
>> > done). Or there is a procedure to assign the bug to me i.e. to update the
>> > status of the bug, so as to avoid duplicate efforts?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Vivek
>>
>> The comment is enough.
>>
>> Ben
>
>
>