Apparently Volker does not agree with what was a kind of agreement here
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24903#comment:3
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23533#comment:13
It would be nice that we take a concrete decision about how much we
support optional packages (and write it in the developer manual). So far
Maarten, Jeroen and I are in favor of as much support with optional as
standard. And Volker seems to be against. It would be nice to have more
opinions.
Vincent
On 14/09/2017 18:37, Maarten Derickx wrote:
Hi Jeroen and Vincent,
Thanks for your concrete answers to my questions.
If people want to keep discussing security issues of sage feel free to do
so but please do it in a different thread. I would like this thread to
focus on my initial question and not get cluttered by related discussions.
On Thursday, 14 September 2017 18:51:59 UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote:
On 13/09/2017 15:28, Maarten Derickx wrote:
So the main questions: do we consider an optional package not building,
not
passing it's own testsuite or causing sage to have doctest failures a
bug?
I do. And as well for me it is the frontier between optional and
experimental packages.
In the other thread it was mentioned that patchbot failures should be
considered blocker status defects (at least if the failures is not due
to a
buggy patchbot/patchbot on an unsupported platform). Does this also hold
for optional packages?
It does for me.
Vincent
--
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.
