I'm also in favor. Besides being more complicated, I think doing something different here for python2 and python3 would be a bad idea.
Am Mittwoch, 10. Oktober 2018 07:27:59 UTC+2 schrieb John H Palmieri: > > At https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/25382, it is being proposed to remove > the documentation for the legacy Sage notebook, a.k.a. sagenb, from the > reference manual. Some reasons for this: > > - sagenb does not work with Python 3, nor does its documentation, so if we > want the docs to build with Python 3, we need to delete it. > - Indeed, sagenb is not really being developed, as far as I can tell. > Maintained to some extent, but not developed. Please correct me if this is > incorrect. > - Some distributions remove this from the reference manual already (as far > as I understand). > - The reference manual should be for Sage proper, not for its components. > The reference manual doesn't include documentation for IPython or the > Jupyter notebook. It does include links to them, and the proposal would be > to give as good a link as possible to sagenb. > > Some reasons against this: > > - sagenb used to be part of Sage, so its role is different from other > components like IPython, etc. > > By the way, it is straightforward to remove the sagenb documentation > completely. It is more complicated and kind of ugly, but possible, to > include the docs in the reference manual conditionally on whether Sage is > built with Python 2 or Python 3. This is discussed on the ticket. > > Any comments? > > -- > John > > -- 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.
