Dear all,
This seems like an appropriate topic for a SYMPEP.
Jason
moorepants.info
+01 530-601-9791
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 5:09 PM Oscar Benjamin
wrote:
> Hi Anton,
>
> I was hoping that others might express their opinions about this.
>
> SPEC 0 seems fine to me.
>
> Oscar
>
> On Wed, 19
Hi Anton,
I was hoping that others might express their opinions about this.
SPEC 0 seems fine to me.
Oscar
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 at 13:35, Anton Akhmerov wrote:
>
> Thank you Oscar for taking action. Does that mean that sympy can endorse
> spec-0? Or that will it do so starting from some
Thank you Oscar for taking action. Does that mean that sympy can endorse
spec-0? Or that will it do so starting from some version?
Anton
On Wednesday 5 June 2024 at 21:13:21 UTC+2 Oscar wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 at 21:10, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> >
> > Personally I am in favour of going with
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 at 21:10, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>
> Personally I am in favour of going with SPEC 0 in coordination with
> the rest of the scientific Python ecosystem. I don't want to cause any
> immediate problems for Sage though so I would be reluctant to make a
> last minute decision to drop
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 at 14:15, Anton Akhmerov wrote:
>
> > SymPy does not really support old versions with maintenance releases
> > so it does not really have a "support cycle" in the sense that SPEC 0
> > seems to describe. There can be a bugfix release shortly after a
> > feature release to fix
> SymPy does not really support old versions with maintenance releases
> so it does not really have a "support cycle" in the sense that SPEC 0
> seems to describe. There can be a bugfix release shortly after a
> feature release to fix some obvious regressions but that is basically
> it.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 8:48 AM Oscar Benjamin
wrote:
>
> Hi Anton,
>
> What difference does it make to you in practice whether or not SymPy
> is listed in SPEC 0?
>
> SymPy does not really support old versions with maintenance releases
> so it does not really have a "support cycle" in the sense
> Is there a reason that someone would need to combine a newer version
of your package with an older version of SymPy?
I believe it's pretty much what Jason wrote: a yet another package might
not support the latest SymPy yet, and a standard similar to SPEC 0 is a
suggestion of what SymPy
A reason to depend on and be compatible with more than 1 version of SymPy
would be to maximize compatibility when installing your package (and thus
SymPy) alongside a collection of interdependent packages.
Jason
moorepants.info
+01 530-601-9791
On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 4:40 PM Oscar Benjamin
Hi Anton,
To be clear I am not against adding SymPy to SPEC 0. I just want to
understand what this means in practice. Presumably if SymPy is added
there then people will have some expectation that it means something
somehow.
I don't really know how to answer the question "which versions of
SymPy
Hi Oscar,
I want to be able to answer a question: "which versions of SymPy should I
try to support within my package that has SymPy as a dependency". It
doesn't make a big difference whether this question is answered by SPEC 0
or by SymPy itself, except for SPEC 0 being a central point of
Hi Anton,
What difference does it make to you in practice whether or not SymPy
is listed in SPEC 0?
SymPy does not really support old versions with maintenance releases
so it does not really have a "support cycle" in the sense that SPEC 0
seems to describe. There can be a bugfix release shortly
Hi all,
There is now SPEC 0, a SciPy-community-wide standard for versions of
different packages that developers should aim supporting,
see https://scientific-python.org/specs/spec-/
I believe Sympy is the biggest package missing from SPEC 0, and I've asked
the maintainers of SPEC 0 what
13 matches
Mail list logo
