> On Jun 29, 3:49 pm, Florent Hivert <florent.hiv...@univ-rouen.fr> > > wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > > I thought it had been agreed no package would be standard unless it > > > is first optional. > > > > There were indeed such an agreement. However, I'd rather following the > > idea of the rule rather than the letter. > > [...] > > > I don't see the point of delaying inclusion in Sage. > > One reason to follow the letter anyway is setting precedent. If you do > this now, then chances are pretty good that there will be someone in > the future championing inclusion of package X. He/she might well point > to this discussion and argue immediate adoption as a standard package > by claiming similarity in situation. This may or may not be justified > and whether it is may depend on your point of view. Now you find > yourself having to argue for or against that. By sticking to the > policy you avoid (or at least reduce) having that unproductive > discussion. Is standard inclusion of lrcarc now worth increased > chatter about immediate standard inclusion vs. first-optional-then- > standard-inclusion in the future? > Well there is a precedent already: ppl
This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message and any attachments. Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more information. -- 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
