Here are some recent occurrences in Sage development: 1. The documentation is not built by default. 2. There has been the assertion that Conda is the recommended approach for compiling from source. 3. Kwankyu has brought up some issues about github release creation. 4. Historically (at least in my experience) Sage developers were careful to maintain backwards compatibility, whereas there are at least some now who are willing to break things and then maybe fix them later. Item 3 arose, and some other issues arose, because code was removed without carefully thinking about the consequences. 5. Others may be able to add other items here, but perhaps we don't need to.
I am not writing this to debate any of these individual issues, but to raise a point: the norm in Sage development has been, when there is a significant change in how Sage will work/built/doctest/whatever, there has been a discussion on sage-devel, with all of the pluses and minuses, often followed by a vote. I view at least items 1 and 2 as major changes, but I don't remember seeing such discussions or votes on sage-devel. Do we want to continue with this norm? This is of course tied up with the governance discussion in which some people have been participating, and coming up with a governance structure might solve this problem, but since I don't think a governance structure is imminent, it makes sense to raise this question now. Item 4 is a change in approach/philosophy within the Sage project, I believe. Opinions about this? -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/f9a3e845-a009-4353-a680-3c3952715105n%40googlegroups.com.
