Another attempt at derailing the ongoing vote, not unexpected. Besides, Matthias must be really the greatest democrat of all - 1st he blocks a part of electorate from voting at the designated venue, and then invite everyone to vote there.
I urge everyone to ignore this alternative vote - to protest against this offensive behaviour. Dima On 18 April 2024 22:18:37 BST, Matthias Koeppe <matthiaskoe...@gmail.com> wrote: >Dear all: > >As an alternative to the proposal to back out the >PR https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964 whose *disputed dependency >PR https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676 which had not reached the >required 2:1 supermajority *of the dispute-resolution process *(it >currently only has a simple majority of 7 votes in favor, 5 votes against)* >--- I am asking for your votes on that dependency PR >https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676 to heal the process. This will >avoid further delays and disruptions. > >*What is the modularization project?* The Sage developer community has long >been aware of the severe problems that the monolithic design of Sage has >brought. See in particular the lively 2016 sage-devel thread "How we >develop Sage" (https://groups.google.com/g/ sage-devel/c/29ndCD8z94k) >initiated by William. In its current incarnation, "modularization project" >refers to my proposal from May 2020, >- to use modern Python packaging ("PEP 517/518/660") and Python 3's >"implicit namespace packages" to >- break the Sage library into separately buildable and installable >"distribution packages" >- while keeping the structure of the source tree mostly unchanged, >monolithic, for the convenience of the Sage developer community. >For the project, hundreds of tickets/PRs have been prepared and merged over >the past 4 years, see the Meta-ticket >https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/29705 for a list. > >*Has the Sage community been informed and consulted regarding the >modularization project? *Yes, in addition to the normal review that all >tickets/PRs underwent: >- I have given detailed presentations about the project in SageDays 110 >(2020), 112.358 (2022), 120 (2023), >see https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/29705 for links. >- A chapter of the Sage Developer Guide, >https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/packaging_sage_library.html#packaging-the-sage-library, > >provides a detailed description of the design >- I have posted numerous times to sage-devel, most recently the series >"SageMath modularization project: The five by five" (2023-06). See >https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/29705 for links to all of these. >- Specifically, in the post "Modularization project: V. The blocs" >(https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/kiB32zP3xD4/m/GJ0qF7TTAAAJ, >2023-06), I outlined the design of the pip-installable packages such as >sagemath-combinat, sagemath-graphs, sagemath-flint, sagemath-plot etc. >- And in my 2023-11 post >https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/kiB32zP3xD4/m/GJ0qF7TTAAAJ in the >same thread, I asked: >> Ready for review: A restructuring of our "all.py" files along these >dependencies in https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676. This is an >opportunity to review the contents of the proposed distributions >implemented in Mega-PR https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/35095 (~50 >kLOC changes, not open for review). As >https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676 rewrites all "all.py" files, it >is also an opportunity for a deliberate coding style decision for these >files. I welcome all constructive discussions in the PR. > >*What does the PR https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676 do? *Per its >title, "Restructure sage.*.all for modularization, replace relative by >absolute imports". The PR is "mostly harmless": There are no user-visible >changes; it's just a bunch of imports that are moved around. It includes no >policy change of any kind; it only executes a design that was previously >reviewed and carefully documented in separate PRs. Nothing permanent or >irreversible is done here. The new files provide the top-level namespaces >needed for doctesting modularized installations of Sage. > >*Has it been reviewed?* Yes, David Coudert and John Palmieri did a detailed >review. This was completed on November 15, 2023 --- over 5 months ago. > >*How did this PR become "disputed"?* Back in November, one commenter >floated an (untested) alternative design >(https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#pullrequestreview-1726079717); >I explained >in https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-1806873154 why >it's not suitable. Commenter demanded that the previously reviewed and >documented design is reopened for discussion, >https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-1863667919. > >*What are the concerns that have been made known during the voting process >for this PR (March/April 2024)?* I will not attempt to paraphrase, but here >are links to some posts so that you can find the discussion. >- Gonzalo Tornaria >https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2048350399, >https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2048848093 >- Michael >Orlitzky https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2048600337 >- Martin Rubey >https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2050427818 > >*How to vote: *By posting a comment on the PR >https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676. > >Matthias > >-- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >"sage-devel" group. >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >To view this discussion on the web visit >https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/5cb60103-9aea-4101-8be6-b88fe262ee0an%40googlegroups.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/1AAEDE3F-3C9F-4A3E-B27A-C56B6E19C749%40gmail.com.
