On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2017-08-23 23:44, Marc Masdeu wrote:
>>
>> This is essentially what they are supposed to be.
>
>
> But it's not what your package does! You are using "sage" all over the
> place.
I'm probably missing something,
On 2017-08-23 23:44, Marc Masdeu wrote:
This is essentially what they are supposed to be.
But it's not what your package does! You are using "sage" all over the
place.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this
Oh and the MANIFEST.in file is not quite good at the moment.
You could add pxd files in there.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 2:57:03 PM UTC-7, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
> Yes!
> I support this :)
>
> My only suggestion would be to get rid of using the travis command.
> And maybe move the
Yes!
I support this :)
My only suggestion would be to get rid of using the travis command.
And maybe move the get_all_version_names into the fake sagemath package.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 2:45:18 PM UTC-7, Marc Masdeu wrote:
>
> This is essentially what they are supposed to be. The main
This is essentially what they are supposed to be. The main goal of
this cookie cutter is to easily set up the project with Travis CI and
automatic documentation generation and deployment.
Marc
-
marc.masdeu AT gmail DOT
On 2017-08-23 17:44, Marc Masdeu wrote:
I know that there is several people who think that this is not the way
that code should be distributed. I am asking feedback from the
complementary set of people, really (although constructive comments from
anyone are definitely welcome!).
My personal
After some work (building upon github.com/sagemath/sage_sample) that some
of us did during Sage Days 87 and the Leiden workshop that took place a few
weeks ago, I'd like to collect some feedback / pull requests on a first
attempt at making it super easy for anyone to get their own working