Hi Jeroen, On 2017-07-10, Jeroen Demeyer <jdeme...@cage.ugent.be> wrote: > I don't think that it should be so strict. Of course, the optional > module should still be within the scope of Sage and be sufficiently > related to things that Sage does.
That would indeed be the case. > Keep in mind that there are advantages to having your code *not* in > Sage, namely: > > (1) it might be usable by people who don't have Sage Doesn't apply to my code, IMHO. > (2) you can develop it as you wish, no need to go through the Sage Trac I believe peer review is a good thing. So, going through Sage Trac is an advantage. >> That's not necessarily bad. If the documentation of optional stuff is built >> by default > > It's the opposite. There is no documentation for optional packages. > There are technical reasons for this, I have not really tried to make it > work. OK, it would be nice to be able to build it. Cheers, Simon -- 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.
