On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 4:49 PM, mmarco <mma...@unizar.es> wrote: > That is a question that we have to address: if we allow this kind of > external packages
It is not up to us to decide. Nobody can stop people from making external Python packages that depend on Sage. Absolutely anybody with any skills could read this page: https://python-packaging.readthedocs.org/en/latest/minimal.html and in about 20 minutes create a Python package that is visible on pypi and which can be "pip installed" into your copy of Sage. (No claims about it being useful.) As Volker has mentioned before, everything is already in place. My hope is just that we make it even easier than it already is, and actually everybody is doing that right now :-) > (or furthermore, move the devlopments of parts of sage to > a different workflow)... what kind of control will we do about them? Will we > make no promises about them at all? Have some kind of revision process > before accepting them? If so, what exactly do we check? > > The fact that all Sage code goes through a peer review process is an > important point. So, if we split the development process in different > modules... should we enforce such a review process in all the modules? All sage code that we distribute as part of the Sage library goes through review. That's not the case for "all sage code" though, in the sense of code that depends on Sage. It might be worth thinking about this like the difference between "writing a paper and putting it on arxiv" and "publishing a paper in a top journal"... and your questions are also extremely good questions for the "publish a paper" setting. Erik Bray shared his experiences about "affiliated packages" for his previous project... -- William > > El viernes, 15 de abril de 2016, 23:40:05 (UTC+2), Dima Pasechnik escribió: >> >> >> >> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 10:13:22 PM UTC+1, Simon King wrote: >>> >>> On 2016-04-15, Vincent Delecroix <20100.d...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > +1. The need of modifying Sage source code to have an external package >>> > is very bad. >>> >>> I miss old-style packages, too. >> >> >> we didn't get to see an spkg with a virus or with `rm -rf /`, but surely >> it was just a question of time... >> > > -- > 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. -- William (http://wstein.org) -- 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.
