On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:42:40 PM UTC, Jack Dyson wrote: > > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 10:44:21 AM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer 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. > > > > Jeroen. > > > > > > > > [1] http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14840#comment:58 > > Hi everyone, > > With the greatest respect, I disagree strongly - chopping and changing the > notebook this way leads to a lot of instability in the code and confusion > for anyone who wants to get into developing on sagenb projects. > > Added to the fact that none of us would have time to document changes in > detail causes new contributions stagnate, which wastes effort and > randomizes progress. > > Actually the functionality of the current notebook is good, the look and > ui is very dated and as many are aware, a bit on the unpolished side. > > Remembering Samuel Ainsworth's really good work a few year's back, I would > like to ask why was that system not developed and integrated into the local > sagemath distributable? > > From the trials he conducted in 2012 it ran well on Sage 5.3 and was in my > opinion a decent step forward. I'll post this to a separate question as I > wanted to explore the possibilities of getting that up and running again, > even if only for private use here. > > It doesn't seem to connect to sage 7.3 so I wanted to see if anyone knew > why ? >
I understand that opinions on usability of https://github.com/sagemath/sagenb/tree/newui diverge. (and with the breakneck speed javascript frameworks are developed, one may ask whether something written in 2012 is still a great idea) You ask why sagenb is not developed further. 1) the sagenb's design is really dated, and jupyter notebook seems a better (and much better supported) alternative. 2) Another actively developed alternative is SMCs notebook, which can be run locally. > > Very best to all > Jack > -- 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.
