why would `sage: tan?` no longer produce the documentation?  I must have 
missed something.

Martin
On Tuesday, 30 September 2025 at 16:31:42 UTC+2 Richard_L wrote:

> Regarding documentation, I would note that README.md on GitHub still says:
>     "The HTML version of the documentation is built during the compilation 
> process of Sage and resides in the directory local/share/doc/sage/html/. 
> You may want to bookmark it in your browser."
> That should be changed if no longer true, and instructions for generating 
> docs provided.
>
> As one whose focus is on using Sage, I look for coherence and stability, 
> so that I can get on with the mathematics. I am disappointed when 'tan?' no 
> longer produces the documentation for tan(). Please remember the users.
>
>  - Richard
>
> On Thursday, September 25, 2025 at 3:47:25 PM UTC-7 John H Palmieri wrote:
>
>> 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/a28aed10-172a-44de-978a-fbba8c8977ecn%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to