Hi Travis,
Happy to see that you are curious regarding the modularization project, but
I don't think it's a good approach to start this discussion with claims
that sound authoritative ("nobody will actually maintain", "does not
scale", "nearly all end users", etc.) and a policy proposal.
I'd say it's more productive if I explain a few things first that seem
unclear. (In particular I'll note that this work is _unrelated_ to making
"Sage better in terms of being a distribution".)
So I'll post something in the next few days when I find the time for it.
In the meantime, interested readers may want to read the existing
documentation at
https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/packaging_sage_library.html
Matthias
On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:15:45 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> Dear everyone,
> I would first like to thank the people who are working to improve the
> Sage development and build process. However, I am starting to become
> concerned about what is being done about the modularization of SageMath.
> Specifically, it is involving the patchbombs (e.g.,
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/35742) with labeling doctests that
> nobody will actually maintain beyond possibly Matthias. Furthermore, the
> large amount of optional labels, especially with no actual optional
> packages, is starting to scare some users. I tell them they can ignore it,
> but I feel that is not giving off a good impression. It is even more
> confounding for people who are starting to develop (e.g., the GSoC
> students).
>
> In short, the current approach to modularization and doctests does not
> scale. I also feel the cost-benefit ratio is too high.
>
> I think we need a new approach, something that is both hidden from the
> end-user (who will essentially never care about anything that is supposed
> to be in the "standard" distribution of Sage) and allows developers much
> more ease to actually develop (including Matthias who will largely be the
> one who will have to fix these).
>
> My proposal is that we *only* have top-of-the-file indicators for
> doctests unless there is a very compelling reason not to. That is, always do
>
> # sage.doctest: optional - sage.modules sage.rings.finite_rings
>
> at the beginning of files. This will hide what should be unnecessary
> details from nearly all end users (for example, who really would not
> install symbolics with Sage on a general install?), make the public
> documentation cleaner, reduce the maintenance for modularization, be an
> easy paradigm for all developers, and have a specific location for all
> relevant information regarding dependencies.
>
> I think there is general consensus that we should make Sage better in
> terms of being a distribution (albeit with some personal reservations with
> ending up at the "grass is greener on the other side" feeling). Yet, I
> really do not see the benefit to having such optional markings localized to
> individual doctests, which often then have to propagate to subsequent ones.
>
> Best,
> Travis
>
>
--
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 sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/6cce137e-094c-4775-80ec-6aba18a6c21fn%40googlegroups.com.
