New SPKG? sqlalchemy
William Stein
Yi Qiang has proposed that sqlalchemy (http://www.sqlalchemy.org/)
be added as a standard Sage package. We now have a procedure that
*all* spkg's must go through before they are added to Sage.
Quick question:
Do you think SQLAlchemy be added to Sage?
[ ] +1 "yes"
[ ] -1 "no"
You can try out SQLalchemy here:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2205
This depends on setuptools:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2481
Here are some *guidelines* for voting/discussing:
GUIDELINES FOR INCLUSION OF ALL NEW SPKGS IN SAGE
1. GPL version 2 compatible license. (This rule
will be reconsidered in December 2008. I.e., we
might allow GPL v3 only code.)
2. The package must build on our supported architectures:
* Linux x86, x86_64, itanium, ppc
* OS X ppc, intel
* Solaris sparc, x86_64
* MS Windows (or at least a reasonable plan for building in
the near future)
3. Quality: The package should be "better" than anything else (that
passes criteria 1 and 2) and an argument should be made for this. The
comparison should be made to both Python and other software. Criteria
in passing the quality test include:
* Speed
* Documentation
* Usability
* Memory leaks
* Maintainable
* Build time
* Size
* Dependencies
4. Interest and Demand:
* JSAGE vote (majority)
* A majority vote on sage-devel.
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
mabshoff
On Mar 14, 8:53 pm, "William Stein" <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yi Qiang has proposed that sqlalchemy (http://www.sqlalchemy.org/)
> be added as a standard Sage package. We now have a procedure that
> *all* spkg's must go through before they are added to Sage.
>
> Quick question:
>
> Do you think SQLAlchemy be added to Sage?
> [ ] +1 "yes"
> [ ] -1 "no"
In this case I thought it was clear that there was sufficient demand
to get this merged. I.e. the discussion to merge this started before
"the rules" were even dicsussed.
> You can try out SQLalchemy here:
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2205
> This depends on setuptools:
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2481
>
> Here are some *guidelines* for voting/discussing:
>
> GUIDELINES FOR INCLUSION OF ALL NEW SPKGS IN SAGE
>
> 1. GPL version 2 compatible license. (This rule
> will be reconsidered in December 2008. I.e., we
> might allow GPL v3 only code.)
> 2. The package must build on our supported architectures:
> * Linux x86, x86_64, itanium, ppc
> * OS X ppc, intel
> * Solaris sparc, x86_64
> * MS Windows (or at least a reasonable plan for building in
> the near future)
> 3. Quality: The package should be "better" than anything else (that
> passes criteria 1 and 2) and an argument should be made for this. The
> comparison should be made to both Python and other software. Criteria
> in passing the quality test include:
> * Speed
> * Documentation
> * Usability
> * Memory leaks
> * Maintainable
> * Build time
> * Size
> * Dependencies
was that it is the best out there.
> 4. Interest and Demand:
> * JSAGE vote (majority)
> * A majority vote on sage-devel.
Michael
William Stein
<Michael...@mathematik.uni-dortmund.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mar 14, 8:53 pm, "William Stein" <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Yi Qiang has proposed that sqlalchemy (http://www.sqlalchemy.org/)
> > be added as a standard Sage package. We now have a procedure that
> > *all* spkg's must go through before they are added to Sage.
> >
> > Quick question:
> >
> > Do you think SQLAlchemy be added to Sage?
> > [ ] +1 "yes"
> > [ ] -1 "no"
>
> +1
>
> In this case I thought it was clear that there was sufficient demand
> to get this merged. I.e. the discussion to merge this started before
> "the rules" were even dicsussed.
If there is sufficient demand, that'll be clear by how this vote goes.
It's really better that we are organized and mature about how we
add things to Sage at this point, I think. Otherwise, packages will
slip in that will cause _you_ tons of grief down the road... as you
no doubt know.
Anyway my vote on SQLalchemy is:
+1
mabshoff
On Mar 14, 9:10 pm, "William Stein" <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 1:03 PM, mabshoff
>
>
>
> <Michael.Absh...@mathematik.uni-dortmund.de> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 14, 8:53 pm, "William Stein" <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
>
> > > Yi Qiang has proposed that sqlalchemy (http://www.sqlalchemy.org/)
> > > be added as a standard Sage package. We now have a procedure that
> > > *all* spkg's must go through before they are added to Sage.
>
> > > Quick question:
>
> > > Do you think SQLAlchemy be added to Sage?
> > > [ ] +1 "yes"
> > > [ ] -1 "no"
>
> > +1
>
> > In this case I thought it was clear that there was sufficient demand
> > to get this merged. I.e. the discussion to merge this started before
> > "the rules" were even dicsussed.
>
> If there is sufficient demand, that'll be clear by how this vote goes.
> It's really better that we are organized and mature about how we
> add things to Sage at this point, I think. Otherwise, packages will
> slip in that will cause _you_ tons of grief down the road... as you
> no doubt know.
the ass in the end. I agree that we need to go about this via some
process, but the fact that I merged a bunch of code dependent on this
which is a pain to remove makes this a rather inconvenient thing to do
now.
Since I also merged Setuptools (since it is a dependency of
SQLAlchemy) we have to go through the same process for that spkg,
too.
> Anyway my vote on SQLalchemy is:
> +1
>
Michael
William Stein
Let's just say that if sqlalchemy gets voted in then setuptools does
automatically.
-- William
mabshoff
On Mar 14, 9:23 pm, "William Stein" <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 1:22 PM, mabshoff
tomorrow/late tonight when you see the 2.10.4.alpha0 changelog :)
> -- William
Cheers,
Michael
Jason Grout
> Hi,
>
> Yi Qiang has proposed that sqlalchemy (http://www.sqlalchemy.org/)
> be added as a standard Sage package. We now have a procedure that
> *all* spkg's must go through before they are added to Sage.
>
> Quick question:
>
> Do you think SQLAlchemy be added to Sage?
> [ ] +1 "yes"
> [ ] -1 "no"
>
+1
Jason
Mike Hansen
> [ ] +1 "yes"
> [ ] -1 "no"
+1
--Mike
Jaap Spies
> Hi,
>
> Yi Qiang has proposed that sqlalchemy (http://www.sqlalchemy.org/)
> be added as a standard Sage package. We now have a procedure that
> *all* spkg's must go through before they are added to Sage.
>
> Quick question:
>
> Do you think SQLAlchemy be added to Sage?
> [ ] +1 "yes"
> [ ] -1 "no"
>
> You can try out SQLalchemy here:
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2205
> This depends on setuptools:
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2481
>
+1 for setuptools :)
Jaap
Nick Alexander
On 14-Mar-08, at 2:25 PM, Jaap Spies wrote:
>
> William Stein wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yi Qiang has proposed that sqlalchemy (http://www.sqlalchemy.org/)
>> be added as a standard Sage package. We now have a procedure that
>> *all* spkg's must go through before they are added to Sage.
>>
>> Quick question:
>>
>> Do you think SQLAlchemy be added to Sage?
>> [ ] +1 "yes"
>> [ ] -1 "no"
+1
Nick
Jason Grout
> Hi,
> 4. Interest and Demand:
> * JSAGE vote (majority)
> * A majority vote on sage-devel.
I assume "majority" = "the sum is positive", right?
Jason
mabshoff
speaker, isn't it?
Just kidding. In the end I think it should be decisive in most cases.
We also discussed the time fame for votes on sage-devel and wstein
suggested 24 hours.
Cheers,
Michael
Timothy Clemans
Justin C. Walker
On Mar 14, 2008, at 12:53 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Yi Qiang has proposed that sqlalchemy (http://www.sqlalchemy.org/)
> be added as a standard Sage package. We now have a procedure that
> *all* spkg's must go through before they are added to Sage.
>
> Quick question:
>
> Do you think SQLAlchemy be added to Sage?
> [ ] +1 "yes"
> [ ] -1 "no"
A couple of questions:
- is it worth making this optional for a period of time so that
we can try it out?
- is it really solving a problem (not hanging out on IRC much,
I have no clue what the issues are)? Or maybe better: what
problem is solved by including it in the standard packages?
- is it sufficiently central that it has to be standard?
It's worth keeping the "base" install as small as feasible (without
cramping Sage's functionality for most users). I noticed that 2.10.3
got about 20MB smaller compared to 2.10.2 (even though that was
mostly documentation shrinkage :-}).
Thanks!
Justin
--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large
Institute for the Absorption of Federal Funds
-----------
My wife 'n kids 'n dogs are gone,
I can't get Jesus on the phone,
But Ol' Milwaukee's Best is my best friend.
-----------
mabshoff
On Mar 15, 1:01 am, "Justin C. Walker" <jus...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2008, at 12:53 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Yi Qiang has proposed that sqlalchemy (http://www.sqlalchemy.org/)
> > be added as a standard Sage package. We now have a procedure that
> > *all* spkg's must go through before they are added to Sage.
>
> > Quick question:
>
> > Do you think SQLAlchemy be added to Sage?
> > [ ] +1 "yes"
> > [ ] -1 "no"
>
> A couple of questions:
> - is it worth making this optional for a period of time so that
> we can try it out?
> - is it really solving a problem (not hanging out on IRC much,
> I have no clue what the issues are)? Or maybe better: what
> problem is solved by including it in the standard packages?
> - is it sufficiently central that it has to be standard?
>
> It's worth keeping the "base" install as small as feasible (without
> cramping Sage's functionality for most users). I noticed that 2.10.3
> got about 20MB smaller compared to 2.10.2 (even though that was
> mostly documentation shrinkage :-}).
both spkgs are small. And sqlalchemy solves a bunch of performance
related issues that turn DSage from barely usable in certain
situations into some much more usable.
I share the desire with you to keep Sage as small as possible. And
setuptools has been optional for a while, sqlalchemy was never put in
the optional repo but had quite an intense review process.
> Thanks!
>
> Justin
Cheers,
Michael
boo...@u.washington.edu
Good! +1
Jason Grout
How about 2 business days? There are some days that I know I'd be too
busy/rushed to comment on a package, much less try to install it. Would
a package really need 24 hour turn-around time?
Or maybe a 1-2 business day vote for getting into optional, then at
least one week there with a voting thread on sage-devel for inclusion
into standard?
Jason
William Stein
We want to keep this _really_ simple, and... Sage moves at the speed of
light, so I say 1 day. Anyway, most people who care will answer quite
quickly. If something is at all contentious though, then we could keep voting
open longer. But if a package gets a bunch of +1's immediately, then the
outcome is pretty clear.
-- William
Robert Miller
> outcome is pretty clear.
David Joyner
>
> Hi,
>
> Yi Qiang has proposed that sqlalchemy (http://www.sqlalchemy.org/)
> be added as a standard Sage package. We now have a procedure that
> *all* spkg's must go through before they are added to Sage.
>
> Quick question:
>
> Do you think SQLAlchemy be added to Sage?
> [ ] +1 "yes"
> [ ] -1 "no"
>
+1
Michael Brickenstein
> > Do you think SQLAlchemy be added to Sage?
> > [ ] +1 "yes"
> > [ ] -1 "no"
>
+1
Robert Bradshaw
>
> Hi,
>
> Yi Qiang has proposed that sqlalchemy (http://www.sqlalchemy.org/)
> be added as a standard Sage package. We now have a procedure that
> *all* spkg's must go through before they are added to Sage.
>
> Quick question:
>
> Do you think SQLAlchemy be added to Sage?
> [ ] +1 "yes"
> [ ] -1 "no"
+1 to SQLAlchemy, it looks like good project. Yi has apparently found
it useful, how many other people out there have downloaded and tried
this out? Anyone?
- Robert