Re: [sage-devel] Make JupyterLab a standard package

2018-03-14 Thread kcrisman
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 1:33:19 PM UTC-4, Samuel Lelievre wrote: > > Let me try to make the case for making JupyterLab a standard package. > > (1) > > According to a recent post on the Jupyter blog [0], > > - JupyterLab is ready for daily use. > - JupyterLab will eventually replace the

Re: [sage-devel] Make JupyterLab a standard package

2018-03-14 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2018-03-13 23:26, Samuel Lelièvre wrote: My view is that since it's pip-installable, it's as though it were already an optional package. I have a very different view of that. "optional" implies a level of official support in SageMath. In particular, it should actually build and work

Re: [sage-devel] Make JupyterLab a standard package

2018-03-14 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2018-03-14 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. I agree with Vincent: the build system doesn't need to know that. -- You received this message because you are

Re: [sage-devel] Make JupyterLab a standard package

2018-03-14 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2018-03-13 23:26, Samuel Lelièvre wrote: What would it mean to make it an optional package? Exactly the same as making it a standard package, except that the type is "optional" instead of "standard". Once you do that, it will be trivial to make it a standard package by just changing the

Re: [sage-devel] Make JupyterLab a standard package

2018-03-13 Thread Vincent Delecroix
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. Vincent 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

Re: [sage-devel] Make JupyterLab a standard package

2018-03-13 Thread John H Palmieri
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. John On

Re: [sage-devel] Make JupyterLab a standard package

2018-03-13 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 10:26:55 PM UTC, Samuel Lelievre wrote: > > 2018-03-13 20:01 GMT+01:00 Jeroen Demeyer >: > > > > 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

Re: [sage-devel] Make JupyterLab a standard package

2018-03-13 Thread Samuel Lelièvre
2018-03-13 20:01 GMT+01:00 Jeroen Demeyer : > > 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

Re: [sage-devel] Make JupyterLab a standard package

2018-03-13 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
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? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe

Re: [sage-devel] Make JupyterLab a standard package

2018-03-13 Thread Samuel Lelievre
Let me try to make the case for making JupyterLab a standard package. (1) According to a recent post on the Jupyter blog [0], - JupyterLab is ready for daily use. - JupyterLab will eventually replace the classic Jupyter Notebook. - JupyterLab has been over three years in the making, with over

Re: [sage-devel] Make JupyterLab a standard package

2018-03-07 Thread kcrisman
On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 4:58:53 AM UTC-5, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2018-03-06 00:29, Samuel Lelièvre wrote: > > I opened a ticket to make JupyterLab a standard package: > > > > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24904 > > > > Any opinions? > > Shouldn't it be an optional package

Re: [sage-devel] Make JupyterLab a standard package

2018-03-06 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2018-03-06 00:29, Samuel Lelièvre wrote: I opened a ticket to make JupyterLab a standard package: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24904 Any opinions? Shouldn't it be an optional package first? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel"

Re: [sage-devel] Make JupyterLab a standard package

2018-03-05 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:33:57 PM UTC, William wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Samuel Lelièvre > wrote: > > I opened a ticket to make JupyterLab a standard package: > > > > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24904 > > > > Any opinions? > > There is a

Re: [sage-devel] Make JupyterLab a standard package

2018-03-05 Thread William Stein
On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Samuel Lelièvre wrote: > I opened a ticket to make JupyterLab a standard package: > > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24904 > > Any opinions? There is a murky discussion about making JupyterLab Python3-only maybe as part of the 1.0

[sage-devel] Make JupyterLab a standard package

2018-03-05 Thread Samuel Lelièvre
I opened a ticket to make JupyterLab a standard package: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24904 Any opinions? Samuel -- 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