On 02-01-2010, at 12:45 AM, Nick Alexander wrote: > > I take issue with the claim that you have done "a LOT" for Sage. Let me be > clear: I appreciate the effort you put into porting Sage to other > architectures. But I question how many people are interested in actually > using Sage on those architectures. You can read the obvious frustration Bill > Hart feels around supporting flint and other software on these unusual > architectures. I want to make it clear that he is not the only one > frustrated with the recent emphasis on porting issues that are unlikely to > affect me. >
Solaris isn't exactly an "unusual" architecture. That's what he's done the most at supporting. He certainly has done "a LOT" at supporting it. I think what he's asking that Bill not purposely break FLINT since it does currently work. > By and large, we are a community of mathematicians. Correct me if I'm wrong, > but you are not contributing to the mathematical aspects of Sage. Until that > changes, your goals and my goals are only occasionally aligned. I hate to think that the only people that are valid contributors to Sage are mathematicians. So, doing the release management, fixing bugs, documentation, or maintaining the web site aren't important? Cheers, Tim. --- Tim Lahey PhD Candidate, Systems Design Engineering University of Waterloo http://www.linkedin.com/in/timlahey -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
