On 2016-04-09 16:23, William Stein wrote:
Feedback from users makes it clear they need a stable foundation on which to build their work
And you think having *many* packages with interdependencies which are independently managed will actually make it more *stable*? Sounds like the contrary to me...
I believe you that there is a problem to be fixed here. However, I absolutely do not understand why modularization of the Sage library would fix that problem.
My proposal is simple: it would be very valuable to support (both culturally and technically) people creating standalone Python packages that depend on Sage, developed using current standard open source practices, which are at this point in pretty good shape.
It's already possible to make Python packages for Sage (it's just Python packages). Same thing here: I do not see how modularization of the Sage library would fix this.
Maybe some small components which are of independent interest (see cysignals for example) can be split off, but I doubt this is a good idea for the mathematical part of Sage.
Jeroen. -- 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 post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
