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 
"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.

Reply via email to