On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 9:24 AM Antonio Rojas <[email protected]> wrote: > > El viernes, 10 de enero de 2020, 14:54:24 (UTC+1), E. Madison Bray escribió: >> >> That seems like the obvious approach to me. As it is I've long felt >> that Sage should be more flexible in its dependencies where >> possible/necessary. With most Python packages it's easy as most have >> a <package>.__version__ and its not so hard to define some variable >> like IS_RPY_2 and just have two separate branches. I have things like >> that all over the place in other packages to support e.g. different >> Numpy versions or work around version-specific bugs. > > > I've opened https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/28988 for rpy. But at this point > the major issues are python 3.8 and ipython 7, and I don't see how one could > support several versions of them without forking hundreds of doctests. Both > updates require multi-thousand-lines patches, due to changes in dict sorting > and hashes.
That remains a fault of over-reliance on doctests. I don't think downstream packaging is a good enough reason to push sage to rush things in such a way that is not well-communicated to the user community. If you need to have a multi-thousand-line patch then so be it. A patch is a patch. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAOTD34YdyANvYbS-M3cQqM-h0aA4a8us3wu4XDq2wMoX%2BGmECA%40mail.gmail.com.
