On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:07 PM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Added the code as an spkg or to the Sage library unchanged (without > adding doctests) is equivalent from this perspective. Code put in the > sage library as a file unchanged is no more or less "absored" than > code put in an spkg. > I disagree. IMO, as a distribution, the code that is part of sage includes our installation scripts, patches, build system, and packages that are unique to our distribution. If we add speakeasy to the sage library, then we are absorbing it into a package unique to our distribution (and hence it is absorbed into sage). If we add speakeasy as an spkg, then only the installation scripts and changes to the build system are added to the sage distribution, not the upstream code. Another way to think about it is that anything that is ours should be under revision control, and everything that is not ours should not be -- by this reasoning, speakeasy should be placed in an spkg. I'm not opposed to having our own implementation of lazy_strings, but I am opposed to absorbing another python library into the sage library. -- Andrew -- 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
