On Wednesday, 14 June 2023 at 05:37:15 UTC+8 Matthias Koeppe wrote: - Some # optional annotations reduce the barrier for contributors, by clearly signaling to developers "it's OK and definitely not your fault if you don't understand this doctest".
To be honest, this sounds like wishful thinking. As a (new) user, reading "# optional - sage.symbolic" makes me more think "wtf. what is this? how do I install this sage.symbolic thing so that I can run use this example?!" then "oh, yes, this test depends on another part of sage, that I have not yet encountered, so I don't need to try to understand this example". This reading is also more in line with Travis' anecdotal evidence " Furthermore, the large amount of optional labels, especially with no actual optional packages, is starting to scare some users. I tell them they can ignore it, but I feel that is not giving off a good impression. It is even more confounding for people who are starting to develop (e.g., the GSoC students)." -- 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/4d511798-99dd-4bf4-9855-5af11f8e316en%40googlegroups.com.
