On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 2:02:34 PM UTC+1, Erik Bray wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Dima Pasechnik <dim...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 1:12:20 PM UTC+1, Erik Bray wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Jeroen Demeyer <jdem...@cage.ugent.be> > > >> wrote: > >> > Hello all, > >> > > >> > I propose to make SageNB no longer a separate package but to move it > >> > back > >> > into the Sage git tree. For purposes of installation and use of > SageNB, > >> > it > >> > will still be a separate Python package, but the sources will be in > >> > $SAGE_ROOT/src/sagenb instead of a separate git repo. The changes to > the > >> > Sage build system to support this move will be minimal. > >> > > >> > The reason is that SageNB is truly in maintenance mode currently. > Making > >> > new > >> > SageNB releases regularly to fix things is a burden for the SageNB > >> > release > >> > manager Karl-Dieter Crisman. On #14840 [1], he said "the sooner > sagenb > >> > gets > >> > back in Sage proper, the better!" > >> > > >> > The original reason to split SageNB from Sage was to enable quick > >> > development. That worked for a while, but now that development has > >> > stalled, > >> > this reason no longer applies. A secondary reason was to make SageNB > >> > truly > >> > independent from Sage, but that also never happened. So I see no > reason > >> > to > >> > keep SageNB split from Sage currently. > >> > > >> > I know this is a controversial proposal, but it will certainly be > easier > >> > to > >> > maintain SageNB this way. I also want to stress that this is > orthogonal > >> > to > >> > any future deprecation or removal of SageNB: we can still do that > from > >> > the > >> > Sage git tree. > >> > >> -1 > >> > >> Any problems related to this are due to deeper problems with how Sage, > >> its dependencies, and its dependents is developed, and less to do with > >> any philosophical problem with them being separate. > >> > >> I say focus on fixing the real problems, not the symptoms. And > >> besides, how much longer do you plan to want to develop sagenb rather > >> than keep it in maintenance mode? > > > > > > It is already in (non)maintenance mode. The problem is in (non). By > folding > > it back one would make sure that it still works. > > Oh, and by the way, it's a good example of a failed attempt to spin Sage > > code off its main codebase. > > Yeah, but the question is why did it fail, and does it need to continue to > fail? >
it's legacy code (see my post https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/HAHulLZkKzw/-A40pl2GAgAJ) noone can really understand, yet it is needed to support a lot of legacy things. Ideally it should have been spun off and become installable as a standalone python package, but this has not happened. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
