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/8a36b7d6-3420-4761-888d-2326aefe3220n%40googlegroups.com.
