I feel like we need another class of package: "pending" (or perhaps some other name) = those which we propose to make standard soon. Most optional packages are not intended to be converted to standard, as far as I can tell, so "optional" isn't the appropriate tag in this case.
John On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 4:29:06 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 10:26:55 PM UTC, Samuel Lelievre wrote: >> >> 2018-03-13 20:01 GMT+01:00 Jeroen Demeyer <j.de...@ugent.be>: >> > >> > On 2018-03-13 18:33, Samuel Lelievre wrote: >> >> >> >> Let me try to make the case for making JupyterLab a standard package. >> > >> > What is your case for *NOT* making it an optional package first? >> >> My view is that since it's pip-installable, it's as though it were >> already an optional package. >> >> What would it mean to make it an optional package? Maybe >> I just don't understand that. >> > > basically, make up a slot in build/pkgs/ with some mostly meta-data. > > And we need a vote. Yes, I vote for make it optional, or better. > > > -- 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.
