On September 30, 2025 9:31:42 AM CDT, Richard_L <[email protected]> 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. > What branch of Sage are you referring to? The default, i.e. the develop branch? If so, it's not official, not ready for any serious use, it's a half-finished product. The Readme has not really been touched since the 10.7 release; one can see the difference with the 10.7 version by running "git diff 10.7 README.md". Its contents, hopefully, correctly reflect what's in 10.7, which predates the changes discussed now. > 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. > Using an unreleased version comes with absolutely no promise of any attempt at coherence. Dima > > - 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/CAAWYfq3qZLqSEc_5PniqoZ%3DJDowXPdqzSw2f%2BLr-hrZKQtq%2BdA%40mail.gmail.com.
