On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Dima Pasechnik <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 5:06:59 PM UTC, David Roe wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Dima Pasechnik <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 3:06:04 PM UTC, William wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Volker Braun <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > I've had people at workshops trying to compile Sage (never mind using >>>> > binaries) and they were SOL because their system bash was linked >>>> against the >>>> > wrong version of some library. If you can't compile it you surely >>>> can't use >>>> > it 6 times. >>>> >>>> David Roe had no trouble compiling Sage. It's wasteful to have to do >>>> it many times repeatedly. >>>> >>> >>> yet, David does not want to spend a bit of his time helping general Sage >>> development. >>> (we talk about perhaps 10 lines of code to change timestamps >>> in the right place, where the most time would go to navigating to the >>> right place...) >>> >> >> Come on Dima. I admit that I haven't been working on Sage as much as I >> used to, since I've been trying to write papers in order to find a job. >> But the claim that I don't want to spend a bit of my time helping general >> Sage development is completely ridiculous. I was involved in the work to >> transition to git, in rewriting the doctest framework, implementing >> coercion. And I'm about to organize a Sage Days (though perhaps you don't >> count p-adic computation as "general" Sage development). Are you just >> trying to take over for Nathann now that he's gone? >> > > I am sorry David, I did not mean to accuse you of anything, I overreacted > to your "the recent changes to relocatability are really annoying" and > "I've never been interested in working on Sage's build system, so I'm not > going to be submitting a pull request on this issue." > I accept your apology, and know that it can be frustrating when other people ask for features in an area that they're not working on. I woke up this morning to see the discussion in this thread and realized that the tone in my original email wasn't the best - "really annoying" was a poor choice of phrase. And, while I don't want to work on the build system myself, I have a lot of appreciation for those of you who do. One of the big selling points of Sage has always been that it's easy to install; thank you to those of you who work to make this true. And I know you put a lot of time into answering questions people have when they run into trouble. > Let me buy you a drink next week --- you might know that I am based in > Oxford, and will at some Sage days 71 talks at least. :-) > Sounds good. I'll see you next week! David > > Cheers, > Dima > http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/dmitrii.pasechnik/ > > >> >> >>> This is fine. But then he has 0 right to request enhancements from >>> volunteers, and you should not >>> have any pity on him for him having to read some new docs and spend >>> extra CPU cycles because >>> of a very, very rare in practice case of use for Sage. >>> >> >> I don't have an *expectation* that people to the work for me. But I >> think I have a right to *request* enhancements. I think that people who >> aren't involved in Sage at all have such a right. >> >> >>> (actually, as Volker points out, a case that might not work in practice, >>> as the server he's using is not powerful >>> enough for 6 teams of people hacking on Sage at the same time...) >>> >> >> William can speak more to the technical details for SMC, but the project >> supposedly has 11GB of RAM, 6 cores (I don't know what kind) and 53GB of >> disk space. We'll probably add more as people arrive for the workshop (I >> think that many participants are SMC customers and might be able to >> contribute). >> >> David >> >> >>>> > Also, your use case is a bit weird; Parallel installations on the >>>> same >>>> > server? >>>> >>>> It's David's use case for Sage Days 71. It seems to me like a >>>> reasonable use case for development. >>>> >>>> > Still, not a problem with rpaths. >>>> >>>> Cool, in theory. >>>> >>>> > >>>> > Finally, if you don't have enough memory to build the docs once then >>>> you'll >>>> > have a bad time running the tests when developing (you do run the >>>> tests, >>>> > right?). >>>> >>>> Sage is getting more and more unwieldy. I fear for its survival. >>> >>> >>> if the best Sage devs like you don't want to make their hands dirty and >>> work on the core Sage, including >>> build system, packages, etc, it might start to collapse indeed. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> - William >>>> >>> -- >>> 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 post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- 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 post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
