@Simon maybe it would help the OP if you elaborated on why the group cohomology code was not included in the standard Sage...
@Nikhil I would suggest that you concentrate in writing useful code in ergodic theory. How to distribute it is secondary, IMO. For ease of development, you definitely don't want to keep recompiling Sage every time you make a small change in it, so I'd recommend you develop it outside of the Sage source tree. Once you have code that you are happy to share, put it on github.com or somewhere else for people to look at. You can then worry about how to distribute it then. On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 8:38:07 AM UTC+2, Simon King wrote: > > Hi Travis, > > On 2017-07-25, Travis Scrimshaw <tsc...@ucdavis.edu <javascript:>> wrote: > > There is no discussion about why separate packages: only suggestions > about > > doing it without mentioning any of the advantages or disadvantages. Yes, > my > > wording is (heavily) loaded, but I did give an advantage to developing a > > separate package: you do not have to have the same coding and > documentation > > standards that is required for integration into Sage. > > IMHO, that's a clear *dis*advantage. In fact, it was part of the reason > why > for some time I considered moving a substantial part of my group > cohomology > spkg into src/sage/... > > Cheers, > Simon > > -- 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.
