> IMHO, if you can't be bothered to read the Sage developers guide and read how > .spkg files are supposed to be maintained, then you should not maintain them. > You do a very poor job of doing so, which creates headaches for others.
I think that the rhetoric needs to be ratcheted down a notch here (on both sides, though I just leave one comment in as an example because I address Dave first below). Nathann and Dave have both made very large, important contributions to Sage, both of which they are passionate about. They have different areas of expertise. Remember, Sage's standards have been slowly evolving, and it takes time to become conversant with them when one is not a programmer by trade. This is particularly true when once something gets in, it's harder to change backwards. So please give a little grace and help make things better. On another thread and tickets people have been very patient with my ignorance about fortran compilers, and it's leading to better support and better spkgs. I suggest that the same thing happen here; maybe upstream would be very happy to check malloc (which I also barely understand). On the other side, it's clear all over the sage lists that many people are not familiar with every OS out there, which makes perfect sense - they are used in widely different environments. Cygwin is one example, since nearly everyone here is on some sort of non-Windows environment - but that doesn't mean it isn't important. So no disparaging remarks needed about that sort of thing either. Otherwise, please move this thread to sage-flame - if only out of self- interest. Potential developers will read this, and the tone (not facts, which are not at issue) may help them decide to move on. Thanks, - kcrisman -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
