Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

Hi Sage developers, Since I posted my request to urgently vote on the modularization PRs, the big revert (https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37796) was merged into Sage 10.4.beta4. The modularization PRs have now been re-created (thanks, Julian, for your help with this). *I'm now asking

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 8:02 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 4:36 PM wrote: > > you might also like to know that in 2000 I asked whether we can have > libgap :P > > https://www.gap-system.org/ForumArchive/Pasechni.1/Dmitrii.1/using_GA.1/1.html > It > Thank you! It is a

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Thursday, April 25, 2024 at 12:17:31 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote: On Thursday 25 April 2024 at 05:13:37 UTC+2 Matthias Koeppe wrote: On Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 1:07:44 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote: You mentioned several times, that discoverability is an important aspect. Do you have any

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 4:36 PM wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 07:03:29AM -0700, Marc Culler wrote: > > On Thursday, April 25, 2024 at 8:28:48 AM UTC-5 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > Essential components of sagelib such as GAP, Singular, don't run on > > native Windows > > > > > > I was amused

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On 25/04/2024 15:28, Nathan Dunfield wrote: In another direction: I have started a port of Sage to pyodide, the distribution of Python for WebAssembly (WASM), which makes Python runnable directly in the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 07:03:29AM -0700, Marc Culler wrote: > On Thursday, April 25, 2024 at 8:28:48 AM UTC-5 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > Essential components of sagelib such as GAP, Singular, don't run on > native Windows > > > I was amused to find the following statement on the GAP forum >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 08:09:48AM -0700, Marc Culler wrote: > The GAP project provides a native Windows installer > . > > So, evidently, it is possible to build GAP for Windows. They do not seem > to provide

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

The GAP project provides a native Windows installer . So, evidently, it is possible to build GAP for Windows. They do not seem to provide build instructions for Windows, however. - Marc On Thursday, April

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

Another amusing quote, this time from the sbrk man page on macOS: > The brk and sbrk functions are historical curiosities left over from > earlier days before the advent of virtual memory management. That seems to be a paraphrase of the FreeBSD man page, which says: > The brk() and sbrk()

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Thursday, April 25, 2024 at 8:28:48 AM UTC-5 Dima Pasechnik wrote: Essential components of sagelib such as GAP, Singular, don't run on native Windows I was amused to find the following statement on the GAP forum from 2005: >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On 25 April 2024 14:47:35 BST, Marc Culler wrote: >On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 8:28 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 1:28 PM Nathan Dunfield >> wrote: >> > >> > On Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 10:14:09 PM UTC-5 Matthias Koeppe wrote: >> > >> > Yes, native Windows would

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 8:28 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 1:28 PM Nathan Dunfield > wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 10:14:09 PM UTC-5 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > > > Yes, native Windows would clearly be a very important target. > > > > > > As a data point,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

Another example is large-scale pure math computation on clusters. Because of Sage's size and the nature of distributive file systems, the time to startup Sage can be 30 seconds or more, which complicates things if you want to do 100,000 calculations that are only 10 seconds each. I agree

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 1:28 PM Nathan Dunfield wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 10:14:09 PM UTC-5 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > Yes, native Windows would clearly be a very important target. > > > As a data point, downloads of our stand-alone SnapPy app, which is about as > high level

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Thursday, April 25, 2024 at 2:17:31 AM UTC-5 Martin R wrote: I agree that my terminology is not good. I tried to make a distinction between research involving math and the - to me unknown - rest. I find it hard to imagine that any mathematician would bother installing anything else but

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 10:14:09 PM UTC-5 Matthias Koeppe wrote: Yes, native Windows would clearly be a very important target. As a data point, downloads of our stand-alone SnapPy app, which is about as high level pure math as it gets, are 60% higher for Windows than macOS. In

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Thursday 25 April 2024 at 05:13:37 UTC+2 Matthias Koeppe wrote: On Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 1:07:44 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote: You mentioned several times, that discoverability is an important aspect. Do you have any evidence to support that? I mentioned "discoverability" in the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 6:48:30 AM UTC-7 Oscar Benjamin wrote: Is the benefit in this case mainly about reduced disk/network usage? I could imagine other theoretical benefits like maybe some parts could be installed natively on Windows or some parts might be easier to provide binaries

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 1:07:44 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote: You mentioned several times, that discoverability is an important aspect. Do you have any evidence to support that? I mentioned "discoverability" in the context of how I have *named* the distributions. Wouldn't people in the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 4:25:41 PM UTC-5 Dima Pasechnik wrote: On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 9:29 PM Nathan Dunfield wrote: > On a related note, the reason that CyPari2 and CyPari are still separate relates to what Marc mentioned earlier about tension between two models of installing

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 9:29 PM Nathan Dunfield wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 2:26:37 PM UTC-5 Oscar Benjamin wrote: > > Thanks Marc. This seems like a good example of a useful part of Sage > that can be extracted to something much smaller than Sage. > > Presumably though a

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 2:26:37 PM UTC-5 Oscar Benjamin wrote: Thanks Marc. This seems like a good example of a useful part of Sage that can be extracted to something much smaller than Sage. Presumably though a hypothetical person who wants CyPari2 but not all of Sage can already just

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 2:26 PM Oscar Benjamin wrote: > Presumably though a hypothetical person who wants CyPari2 but not all of > Sage can already just use CyPari so that person is already well served. > That hypothetical person could also use CyPari2 if they didn't care about memory leaks and

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 15:37, Marc Culler wrote: > > I think that CyPari ;and CyPari2 provide a relevant example. > > Some background ... CyPari is a PyPi package with binary wheels which > predates and was the starting point for Sage's cypari2 (hence the 2 in the > name). The basis for

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 3:37 PM Marc Culler wrote: > > I think that CyPari ;and CyPari2 provide a relevant example. > > Some background ... CyPari is a PyPi package with binary wheels which > predates and was the starting point for Sage's cypari2 (hence the 2 in the > name). The basis for

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

I think that CyPari ;and CyPari2 provide a relevant example. Some background ... CyPari is a PyPi package with binary wheels which predates and was the starting point for Sage's cypari2 (hence the 2 in the name). The basis for CyPari was Sage's pari module. That module was modified to make it

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 2:08 PM Kwankyu Lee wrote: > > Wouldn't people in the python world who need a serious amount of math know of > sage anyway, and then, if they cannot rely on all of sage because that is too > large, use, for example, `citation.get_systems` to see whether they can do >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at 15:27, Marc Culler wrote: > > The projects that will really benefit from modularization will be those that > provide their own limited mathematical context. Developers of such projects > will be able to choose which parts of Sage are relevant to their specific >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

Wouldn't people in the python world who need a serious amount of math know of sage anyway, and then, if they cannot rely on all of sage because that is too large, use, for example, `citation.get_systems` to see whether they can do without some dependencies? I think they would do `pip

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

Dear Matthias! You mentioned several times, that discoverability is an important aspect. Do you have any evidence to support that? Wouldn't people in the python world who need a serious amount of math know of sage anyway, and then, if they cannot rely on all of sage because that is too

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On 23 April 2024 19:13:44 BST, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >On Tuesday, April 23, 2024 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > >On 23 April 2024 18:41:34 BST, Matthias Koeppe >wrote: >>*$ git blame src/sage/combinat//designs/block_design.py* >> >>fdbe7f7e3348 (Matthias Koeppe

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Tuesday, April 23, 2024 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: On 23 April 2024 18:41:34 BST, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >*$ git blame src/sage/combinat//designs/block_design.py* > >fdbe7f7e3348 (Matthias Koeppe 2023-07-12 10:53:08 -0700 65) >lazy_import('sage.libs.gap.libgap',

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On 23 April 2024 18:41:34 BST, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >On Tuesday, April 23, 2024 at 10:32:22 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >in >src/sage/combinat//designs/block_design.py > >you can see > >lazy_import('sage.libs.gap.libgap', 'libgap')

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Tuesday, April 23, 2024 at 10:32:22 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: in src/sage/combinat//designs/block_design.py you can see lazy_import('sage.libs.gap.libgap', 'libgap') lazy_import('sage.rings.finite_rings.finite_field_constructor', 'FiniteField') *$ git blame

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Tuesday, April 23, 2024 at 8:38:13 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote: If I understand correctly, the current proposal does not mind if some things don't work or could be replaced without too much effort. For example, Dima might have referred to the fact that OrderedPartitions.cardinality uses gap,

[sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Monday, April 22, 2024 at 2:22:36 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote: I still don't see why you would name these distributions as you do, and why you collect them as you do. Above I explained, "I introduce these packages to create *discoverability* for potential consumers of portions of the Sage

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 3:31 PM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 23, 2024 at 6:14:05 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 10:42 PM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > Let's just go through the list of distribution packages and their > dependencies for concreteness. (All

[sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Tuesday, April 23, 2024 at 5:35:10 AM UTC-7 Kwankyu Lee wrote: I meant the sage library as a collection of mathematical modules. If a certain module did not but somehow would develop to rely on the mathematical functionality of another module, then the design of the modularization should

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

If I understand correctly, the current proposal does not mind if some things don't work or could be replaced without too much effort. For example, Dima might have referred to the fact that OrderedPartitions.cardinality uses gap, even though it is in sagemath-combinat. The gap dependency in

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Tuesday, April 23, 2024 at 6:14:05 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 10:42 PM Matthias Koeppe wrote: Let's just go through the list of distribution packages and their dependencies for concreteness. (All depend on *sagemath-categories* and thus on the basic arithmetic

[sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Tuesday, April 23, 2024 at 4:07:37 AM UTC-5 Tobias wrote: In reply to the comment ( https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2067371677) once the modularization is in place, it will impose wide-ranging constraints on what functions from other modules you are able to use.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 10:42 PM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Sunday, April 21, 2024 at 2:30:15 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote: > > Why would you separate mathematics into packages that have no more > external dependencies from others, which at the same time may grow internal > dependencies over time? >

[sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

>> My fear would be that at some point there is a request not to use symbolics in some module, because Lisp is hard to install on some system. >That should not happen. Modularization is downstream to the sage library. Yes, we are restructuring some parts of the sage library to fit with

[sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

In reply to the comment (https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2067371677) >> My fear would be that at some point there is a request not to use symbolics in some module, because Lisp is hard to install on some system. >That should not happen. Modularization is downstream to

[sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

Thank you for this list. I still don't see why you would name these distributions as you do, and why you collect them as you do. For example, as far as I know, symmetrica is currently essentially only used by symmetric functions, Schubert polynomials. So, if symmetrica is such a burden to

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Sunday, April 21, 2024 at 7:01:04 AM UTC+9 kcrisman wrote: By choosing to be an exception in the Python world, Sage obviously does something quite wrong. Can someone who is not Dima or Matthias explain to us how it is possible that they both are claiming to represent the normal Python

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On 2024-04-20 15:33:51, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > Michael, I think you may be using too much jargon to get your point across > to the general readership of this list. > > Let's maybe use this opportunity to make this as concrete as possible and > explain it in the most plain terms. > What

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 1:01:33 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: On 20 April 2024 19:34:49 BST, Matthias Koeppe wrote: SageMath is already pip-installable. >That was one of the first deliverables of the modularization project, >completed in 2021. >See

[sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Sunday, April 21, 2024 at 2:30:15 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote: Why would you separate mathematics into packages that have no more external dependencies from others, which at the same time may grow internal dependencies over time? Let's just go through the list of distribution packages and

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 1:01:33 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: Anyway, a normal Python pypi-installable package comes with binary wheels, i e. things are pre-built, and it's merely matter of downloading these to get a functional package. Few minutes on a fast network, not hours. By

[sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Sunday, April 21, 2024 at 2:30:15 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote: I can imagine that it would make sense to make as much as possible into runtime dependencies - you wrote below that building the dependencies takes a lot of time. Maybe that's the core problem, I don't know. If you want to know,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Sunday, April 21, 2024 at 9:42:24 AM UTC-5 Nathan Dunfield wrote: For the statements in this thread, I don't see any contradictions about the definition of the "normal Python way of doing things". My understanding of that term is to post *self-contained* binary wheels to PyPI for all

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 5:01:04 PM UTC-5 kcrisman wrote: Can someone who is not Dima or Matthias explain to us how it is possible that they both are claiming to represent the normal Python way of doing things? There have been numerous statements by both of them about this, which makes

[sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

Dear Matthias, This doesn't make sense to me. Why would you separate mathematics into packages that have no more external dependencies from others, which at the same time may grow internal dependencies over time? I can imagine that it would make sense to make as much as possible into runtime

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 3:23:12 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote: in its current incarnation, the modularization relies heavily on the sage distribution vendoring. Conflict arises because the modularization is cited as a blocker whenever someone wants to pare down or disentangle some

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 3:01:04 PM UTC-7 kcrisman wrote: "normal Python" is not necessarily as relevant for those who would *only* want Sage, or at least mostly so. Having just another Python package might lead us to implementing powers as ** instead of ^, which would be a regression,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Sat, 2024-04-20 at 15:01 -0700, kcrisman wrote: > > Can someone who is not Dima or Matthias explain to us how it is possible > that they both are claiming to represent the normal Python way of doing > things? There have been numerous statements by both of them about this, > which makes it

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

By choosing to be an exception in the Python world, Sage obviously does something quite wrong. Can someone who is not Dima or Matthias explain to us how it is possible that they both are claiming to represent the normal Python way of doing things? There have been numerous statements by

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On 20 April 2024 19:34:49 BST, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >On Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 12:56:30 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote: > >do I understand correctly that common lisp (via maxima) is the main >dependency that prevents sagemath from being pip-installable? > > >No. > >For one, SageMath is

[sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 12:56:30 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote: do I understand correctly that common lisp (via maxima) is the main dependency that prevents sagemath from being pip-installable? No. For one, SageMath is already pip-installable. That was one of the first deliverables of the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Sat, 2024-04-20 at 10:07 +0100, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > Apart from Lisp, there is GAP (with the corresponding effort stalled). > > That's what is much more urgent than attempting to slice up the maths > functionality of sagelib. > Also the ancient copy of ginac/pynac we bundle. -- You

[sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 12:34:06 PM UTC-7 Martin R wrote: why do you introduce distributions sage-graphs, sage-combinat, sage-categories etc. Let's follow the link included in my previous message to my June 2023 sage-devel post https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/kiB32zP3xD4 and

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On 20 April 2024 08:56:30 BST, 'Martin R' via sage-devel wrote: >A follow-up question: do I understand correctly that common lisp (via >maxima) is the main dependency that prevents sagemath from being >pip-installable? pip install sagemath-standard already works in a venv on a box with

[sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

A follow-up question: do I understand correctly that common lisp (via maxima) is the main dependency that prevents sagemath from being pip-installable? All the best, Martin On Friday 19 April 2024 at 21:34:06 UTC+2 Martin R wrote: > On Friday 19 April 2024 at 20:08:51 UTC+2 Matthias Koeppe

[sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Friday 19 April 2024 at 20:08:51 UTC+2 Matthias Koeppe wrote: On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 5:08:02 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote: 2.) If this is about dependencies on other software, why aren't the distributions named after these dependencies? Martin, I have answered this already when you

[sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 5:08:02 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote: 2.) If this is about dependencies on other software, why aren't the distributions named after these dependencies? Martin, I have answered this already when you asked it in the PR: Some are. Note that the description of the PR where

[sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 5:08:02 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote: *> What is the modularization project?* The Sage developer community has long been aware of the severe problems that the monolithic design of Sage has brought. See in particular the lively 2016 sage-devel thread "How we develop

[sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

Dear Matthias! *> What is the modularization project?* The Sage developer community has long been aware of the severe problems that the monolithic design of Sage has brought. See in particular the lively 2016 sage-devel thread "How we develop Sage"