On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 1:12:20 PM UTC+1, Erik Bray wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Jeroen Demeyer <jdem...@cage.ugent.be> >> wrote: >> > Hello all, >> > >> > I propose to make SageNB no longer a separate package but to move it >> > back >> > into the Sage git tree. For purposes of installation and use of SageNB, >> > it >> > will still be a separate Python package, but the sources will be in >> > $SAGE_ROOT/src/sagenb instead of a separate git repo. The changes to the >> > Sage build system to support this move will be minimal. >> > >> > The reason is that SageNB is truly in maintenance mode currently. Making >> > new >> > SageNB releases regularly to fix things is a burden for the SageNB >> > release >> > manager Karl-Dieter Crisman. On #14840 [1], he said "the sooner sagenb >> > gets >> > back in Sage proper, the better!" >> > >> > The original reason to split SageNB from Sage was to enable quick >> > development. That worked for a while, but now that development has >> > stalled, >> > this reason no longer applies. A secondary reason was to make SageNB >> > truly >> > independent from Sage, but that also never happened. So I see no reason >> > to >> > keep SageNB split from Sage currently. >> > >> > I know this is a controversial proposal, but it will certainly be easier >> > to >> > maintain SageNB this way. I also want to stress that this is orthogonal >> > to >> > any future deprecation or removal of SageNB: we can still do that from >> > the >> > Sage git tree. >> >> -1 >> >> Any problems related to this are due to deeper problems with how Sage, >> its dependencies, and its dependents is developed, and less to do with >> any philosophical problem with them being separate. >> >> I say focus on fixing the real problems, not the symptoms. And >> besides, how much longer do you plan to want to develop sagenb rather >> than keep it in maintenance mode? > > > It is already in (non)maintenance mode. The problem is in (non). By folding > it back one would make sure that it still works. > Oh, and by the way, it's a good example of a failed attempt to spin Sage > code off its main codebase.
Yeah, but the question is why did it fail, and does it need to continue to fail? -- 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 sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
