[Debian-science-sagemath] pari-sage or pari ?

[jdemeyer at cage.ugent.be]

> No, I don't think you "control upstream", and the fact you're saying  
> this, shows that you don't understand what it means to work in the  
> broader FOSS community. The whole point is that you *do not* have  
> control over many of your dependencies. Gradually one learns how to  
> work *with* this fact instead of *against* it.

I don't see it as *with* or *against* but mostly as a neutral thing: I  
propose a patch to upstream and then upstream decides what to do with  
it. If they do not want tot accept the patch, that is not my problem.

> As a concrete example: you *do* have control over what code Sage  
> accepts. So, as I suggested below, you can delay accepting certain  
> patches into Sage, until upstream patches are applied - especially  
> minor ones (3 lines) that have a major outside effect (~15 failed  
> tests in Sage) - and encourage or require Sage contributors to first  
> upstream their patches. Or, you write your code against the current  
> bad upstream API, and add a TODO and a description of how to change  
> it to use the good one, when your patch finally gets accepted.

That means releasing software with bugs for which there are known  
fixes, or with less features just because of upstream. Now *that* is  
not acceptabele fort me. So it's just a matter of priorities: my  
priority is making the best software.

Jeroen.


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.