> Not right now. I'm sure Michael Abshoff would agree that we are way > too busy just dealing with Sage itself.
OK, I am not surprised - Sage is an ambitious undertaking. > However, note that there are two versions *right now* -- Sage and SPD > -- and that this is not in any way increasing my workload or > Michael's. It's for this reason that I'm not sure I fully agree with > your statement above that "From a development perspective, it makes no > sense to have two separate projects (Sage/SPD)." Yes, SPD really is functioning as a Sage version. I also agree with you that another true Sage version could create additional work for the Sage devs - even if folks like myself and Ondrej agreed to spearhead it. But, if in the medium term (as Michael is hoping for), the Sage build system can be improved to the point where both Sage and SPD are using the same infrastructure, that would help a lot. We could then create SPD releases with whatever spkgs that we need without burdening the Sage devs. Cheers, Brian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
