I am not sure there is a need for such distinction. As a user, you
mostly don't care. As a developer, you know the "real" status.
On 14/03/2018 02:08, John H Palmieri wrote:
I feel like we need another class of package: "pending" (or perhaps some
other name) = those which we propose to make standard soon. Most optional
packages are not intended to be converted to standard, as far as I can
tell, so "optional" isn't the appropriate tag in this case.
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 4:29:06 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 10:26:55 PM UTC, Samuel Lelievre wrote:
2018-03-13 20:01 GMT+01:00 Jeroen Demeyer <j.de...@ugent.be>:
On 2018-03-13 18:33, Samuel Lelievre wrote:
Let me try to make the case for making JupyterLab a standard package.
What is your case for *NOT* making it an optional package first?
My view is that since it's pip-installable, it's as though it were
already an optional package.
What would it mean to make it an optional package? Maybe
I just don't understand that.
basically, make up a slot in build/pkgs/ with some mostly meta-data.
And we need a vote. Yes, I vote for make it optional, or better.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.