[sage-devel] Re: CI Is (Generally) Broken

2024-05-19 Thread 'tobia...@gmx.de' via sage-devel
I've now set https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37998 back to "need work" for the following reasons: - Needs to be tested on all 6 os/python version combinations - Updates of the conda lock files should never require additions to the "known bugs" exclusions. If a certain version upgrade

[sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

2024-04-23 Thread 'tobia...@gmx.de' via sage-devel
In reply to the comment (https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2067371677) >> My fear would be that at some point there is a request not to use symbolics in some module, because Lisp is hard to install on some system. >That should not happen. Modularization is downstream to

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Proposal (redo): Make python_build (and its dependency pyproject_hooks) a standard package

2024-04-14 Thread 'tobia...@gmx.de' via sage-devel
-1 The usage of "setup.py sdist" or "setup.py bdist_wheel" only happens in certain edge cases (e.g. the almost un-documented `--enable-wheels` option) and in these cases it is no problem to require developers to run `pip install build` beforehand. So these last remaining instances of calling

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-10 Thread 'tobia...@gmx.de' via sage-devel
> 4. Please vote -1 on https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36580, https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36753, and https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37138, which attempt to obstruct the modularization project and the mechanism for the distribution on PyPI. Please refrain from such

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

2024-03-04 Thread 'tobia...@gmx.de' via sage-devel
I think Martin raises important points and agree that 0-4 should be added to the code of conduct (more in spirit than in this particular formulation; for example, I like the proposed reformulations of David). Point 5 is important as well, but I would say it's enough to spell out the rules

[sage-devel] Re: Unload "blocker" label

2024-02-25 Thread 'tobia...@gmx.de' via sage-devel
Just move "usage 2" to a new label. Would be more intuitive and explicit in my opinion. On Monday, February 26, 2024 at 1:25:34 PM UTC+8 Kwankyu Lee wrote: > Hi > > "blocker" label is overloaded too much. It is used for > > usage 1: PRs that should be merged to the next release > usage 2: PRs

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Proposal: Make pytest, pytest_xdist, pytest_mock, python_build standard packages

2024-02-19 Thread 'tobia...@gmx.de' via sage-devel
+1 for the one-line change of the type from "optional" to "standard". -1 on everything ("standard pip" or "standard wheel") that involves an unnecessary version constraint and an explicit declaration of the runtime dependencies. On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 4:51:45 PM UTC+8 Dima

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [Proposal] allow standard packages to be pip packages, reduce source tarball size

2024-02-19 Thread 'tobia...@gmx.de' via sage-devel
This discussion about the need to fix the version of pytest *and its runtime dependencies* is almost comical. We are installing and running pytest successfully since 3 years without any version requirement via pip in ci and experienced zero issues. We are also not alone in that. For example,

[sage-devel] Re: [Proposal] allow standard packages to be pip packages, reduce source tarball size

2024-02-12 Thread 'tobia...@gmx.de' via sage-devel
+1 for both proposals. Via "pip download" (https://pip.pypa.io/en/stable/cli/pip_download/) it is easy to resolve and download all pip packages on a system with internet connection, and then later on the target system install it without the need for internet. On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at