Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 12:34 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> - Some people with strong opinions said that they are not ready to formulate >> their views. >> >> My impression is that trac is now doing okay, > > > Note that trac's bus factor is down to 1/3. It took efforts of Frederick, > Jan, and me

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Fri, 16 Sep 2022, 19:54 John H Palmieri, wrote: > A few comments: > > - We have a strong history in Sage of conducting votes, and I absolutely > think we need to do that for this issue. We also have a history (with > perhaps a small number of exceptions) of having majority rule, and I think >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

A few comments: - We have a strong history in Sage of conducting votes, and I absolutely think we need to do that for this issue. We also have a history (with perhaps a small number of exceptions) of having majority rule, and I think that's what we should do here: no need for a 2/3 vote. An as

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 3:08:20 AM UTC-7 Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > Le jeudi 15 septembre 2022 à 18:34:22 UTC+2, Matthias Koeppe a écrit : > >> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 9:04:09 AM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 6:21:09 AM UTC-7 Eric Gourgou

[sage-devel] Re: Should really `make configure` download files on error?

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 8:43:22 AM UTC-7 mpn7...@gmail.com wrote: > What happened is that the `bootstrap` script, in charge of building the > `configure` script, had failed to build and decided to download a > configure script from sage's mirrors as a fallback (as told by the -d > flag

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Fri, 16 Sep 2022, 17:20 kcrisman, wrote: > > I'd rather focus the vote primarily on the move away from trac, not >> specifying whether it's GitHub or GitLab. >> >> >> >> > Given that, we face Arrow's theorem in picking a voting system >> (especially if we also want to allow people to abstain).

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

> I'd rather focus the vote primarily on the move away from trac, not > specifying whether it's GitHub or GitLab. > > > > > Given that, we face Arrow's theorem in picking a voting system > (especially if we also want to allow people to abstain). I'm normally in > favor of a Borda count varian

Re: [sage-devel] Should really `make configure` download files on error?

IMHO ./bootsrtap should not be invoked by any of our 'make' targets. same for ./configure (I can't recall any real reason, apart from convenience, that we do this) On Fri, 16 Sep 2022, 16:43 Martin Pépin, wrote: > Hi all, > > I had a weird issue with sage recently which boiled down to `make

[sage-devel] Should really `make configure` download files on error?

Hi all, I had a weird issue with sage recently which boiled down to `make build` completing without an error (at first glance) but giving me an ill-configured sage. What happened is that the `bootstrap` script, in charge of building the `configure` script, had failed to build and decided to

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

Le jeudi 15 septembre 2022 à 18:34:22 UTC+2, Matthias Koeppe a écrit : > On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 9:04:09 AM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > >> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 6:21:09 AM UTC-7 Eric Gourgoulhon >> wrote: >> >>> I don't understand why in the post >>> https://groups.goog

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 9:19 AM David Roe wrote: > > I've started working on a list of pros and cons to be included in the email > proposing a vote. Even though I favor the switch, I've tried to accurately > and neutrally describe the arguments in each direction. I welcome help and > addition

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

Hi Seb, On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 7:57 AM seb@gmail.com wrote: > > Matthias Koeppe schrieb am Donnerstag, 15. September 2022 um 21:22:25 UTC+2: >> >> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 2:09:23 AM UTC-7 Samuel Lelievre wrote: >>> >>> c. Several people refuse to open a GitHub account >> >> >> I d

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

I've started working on a list of pros and cons to be included in the email proposing a vote. Even though I favor the switch, I've tried to accurately and neutrally describe the arguments in each direction. I welcome help and additi

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 11:57:35 PM UTC-7 seb@gmail.com wrote: > About ten years before Google was on Earth someone put a poster on our > corridor of the University building: *Microsoft free area*. We all were > proud about that. But at that point nobody knew what should come lat

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

Dear Karmakar, On Fri, 16 Sept 2022 at 09:36, Karmakar Subroto wrote: > I don't want this email more..please removed me from your mailing > schedule. > At the bottom of each email it says: -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. * To un

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

I don't want this email more..please removed me from your mailing schedule. On Fri, Sep 16, 2022, 12:57 PM seb@gmail.com wrote: > Matthias Koeppe schrieb am Donnerstag, 15. September 2022 um 21:22:25 > UTC+2: > >> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 2:09:23 AM UTC-7 Samuel Lelievre wrote: >>