#10295: Upgrading pexpect
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: SimonKing | Owner: was
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.7
Component: interfaces | Resolution:
Keywords: pexpect upgrade | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/fbissey/pexpect3.3 | a24eab3ce985874ab8445ed5e362bbeead76fd40
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by fbissey):
Right, I am hearing you. This is a definite problem. So is keeping dead
software. If we are keeping the pexpect 2.0 branch in for performance
issue it becomes the responsibility of sage developers to maintain it and
add new features like the one Bill wants.
Effectively we are maintaining a fork and if we are going that way I would
it to be formalized with a different name and possibly integrated in the
sage code itself. This is so people don't get upgraded to a different
pexpect through pip if they are using it. Also while our core
functionality uses this pexpect, we don't want to block other packages
that would need a newer pexpect.
That is my opinion on the matter. The other way is to work, possibly with
upstream, to solve that latency problem in newer versions.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10295#comment:34>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" 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 http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
