Hi,
Le 11/06/2015 10:28, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
On 2015-06-11 03:40, François Bissey wrote:
* fork upstream and keep it as a separate package but
no one really wants to be the maintainer.
If it's decided that we are allowed to fork polybori, can this be
applied to other packages too?
I have often been frustrated in Sage by people complaining that we
should stay as close to upstream as possible, that we shouldn't patch
packages in Sage, that we should stick to release (non-development)
versions of packages in Sage.
Most recently for example in #18450 I was forced to rewrite part of a
patch because upstream Cython didn't want to accept a patch (I still
think that my patch was reasonable and I don't understand why upstream
doesn't like it).
And every time I make a change to PARI, I feel resistance because we're
moving further away from the released PARI version.
So I hope that you understand my frustration if other people can do with
polybori what they want but I constantly hit walls because I am not
allowed to patch other packages.
Really, I wish we could just give up on this whole "packaging Sage for
distributions" effort.
I can hardly disagree more.
That basically means that instead of working on sagemath, sage devs will
end up working on keeping hundreds of more or less nonsensical forks,
with hundreds of hostile upstreams.
Open software is about cooperation.
Snark on #sagemath
--
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 post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
