On Feb 18, 6:00 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > We don't need a vote for experimental -- that's only for optional and > standard. > So, I've addedchompto experimental just now.
Can you clarify this? My understanding was: 1) An experimental package addition should have a trac ticket, but anything reasonable should be allowed in. 2) An optional package should have a trac ticket, compile on supported platforms as much as possible, and at least work on the supported platforms. I suppose there are license issues as well as to what we can distribute. 3) A standard package should compile on all supported platforms, have a trac ticket, and if its new it should have a sort of probationary period as an optional package. Then a vote is taken here on sage- devel. I think having the CHomP package in is great, but perhaps there should have been a ticket for that? -Marshall On Feb 26, 7:06 pm, Robert Miller <r...@rlmiller.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:00 PM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We don't need a vote for experimental -- that's only for optional and > > standard. > > So, I've added chomp to experimental just now. > > Why don't we have a vote to make it optional? It seems like pretty > solid code, much better than most of the other "experimental" > packages. > > -- > Robert L. Millerhttp://www.rlmiller.org/ -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
