On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 1:35 AM 'Travis Scrimshaw' via sage-devel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Matthias, > > Happy to see that you are curious regarding the modularization project, but I > don't think it's a good approach to start this discussion with claims that > sound authoritative ("nobody will actually maintain", "does not scale", > "nearly all end users", etc.) and a policy proposal. > > > Yes, you're right. I do not have any hard analytic data to support what users > want and are doing, and that observation is based solely on my years of > experience with working with Sage, going to and speaking at SageDays, and > convincing people to start using Sage. However, there is clear evidence that > the current approach is not scaling by the amount of work that is going in > and frequent updates/fixed that is needed to be done. Currently, only you are > the one doing this.
What exactly is not scaling? "Vendor everything" approach abandoned ~9 years ago obviously didn't scale. I think we're not unvendoring things aggressively enough, and that's what we quarrel with Matthias about. I'm about to start a round of discussions here to lead to a vote to remove vendored gcc and gfortran. We also should be getting rid of Sage-nonspecific things such as vendored Python (with the needed dependencies such as openssl), and vendored Jupyter and its huge slew of its dependencies (for the latter Matthias is on board, I think). It's also not correct that modularisation is currently only done by Matthias. E.g. most recently I worked on unvendoring of Maxima. I worked on doing some abstract classes for parts of sage.coding, I worked on spinning out prime counting stuff into a separate pip-installable module (that was in 2021, though), etc. The interdependecies of parts of Sage library on each other are decreasing, and this is certainly a big deal in terms of updating/fixing things. (Not importing from sage.all in the library is a big deal). Dima Some of that is the lack of discussion (which I would like to have seen given the large scale nature of this change, which is implicitly setting policy by default). You can disagree with my conclusions and proposal, but I want to actually talk about that rather than having dismissive comments. Can you provide any specific counterpoints and your expectations? What you posted on the other thread does not address any of these. > > Best, > Travis > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/84fbc2ed-00c8-4ca6-8aa7-d4c74e8c2455n%40googlegroups.com. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq3p%2B-tGb5tW2HDfp9UydYs2y92oJP3nQLXEKdxV7juuyQ%40mail.gmail.com.
