py3: do not include the notebook documentation in sage #25382
Comments
|
Commit: |
|
comment:2
I have no clear idea about what should be done here. Where will the sagenb doc live, if we get rid of it ? New commits:
|
|
Branch: public/25382 |
|
comment:3
Are we never going to get sagenb working in Python 3? I've just been assuming that for now we don't have it, but that we would eventually port it at least for now. Or are we truly abandoning sagenb for Python 3? |
|
comment:4
Well, if somebody wants to do the job of converting sagenb to full python3 compatibility.. I have no idea of the difficulty of the task. |
|
comment:5
I'm fine with removing sagenb when we drop Python2 support unless somebody wants to port it... The SageNB docs should just say that (and suggest to use the jupyter notebook) |
|
comment:6
If the ETA is still some time from now for Py2 drop that seems plausible. But hopefully it won't be that bad; I feel like #22431 was closer than we thought. |
|
comment:7
We should try in the ticket #22431 to see if we can re-activate sagenb in py3-sage. We decided some time ago to de-activate it as it was blocking the build of py3-sage. Try to-re-insert sagenb requires first #24269 to fix py3-sage. Then rewrite the spkg-install on top of #25394. On the side-point to get rid of sagenb imports inside sage, tt would be helpful to positive-review #24994. |
|
comment:8
let us close this one as invalid, as we are on the way towards building the doc on py3, including sagenb doc |
|
comment:9
I think this is still a good idea (for python2 and python3). Given that sagenb has been deprecated for a while, I think it would be a good idea to either just remove it or make it a optional spkg. #24994 is a nice step in that direction and this would be another. Why should the documentation of the deprecated sagenb be included in sage when the documentation of other spkgs isn't? For context: sagenb is a pain to package. First because of sagemath/sagenb#440 and now while updating flask I encountered more problems. |
|
comment:10
Deprecated in what sense? Unofficially, sure - but probably this would need to be a much bigger announcement and very obvious that it is removed, rather than the (very sensible) procedure of upgrade option we currently offer. |
|
comment:11
+1 to communicating the deprecation better, e.g. display a deprecation notice when you start sagenb. I don't really mind it being standard vs. optional, I just don't want somebody new to Sage get started with sagenb in 2018 just because it comes up by default. |
|
comment:12
Deprecated because I was told so in sagemath/sagenb#440 (I was surprised there so I agree that it should be communicated better). Also the docs refer to it as the "legacy SageNB". |
|
comment:13
I don't think that anyone would be having it come up by default, the default is Jeroen's converter and pretty soon most people's default ends up the Jupyter. Maybe an intermediate thing to being an optional package (which is very bad for the kind of end users who would need sagenb!) would be to formally change the default interface to being Jupyter, with VERY clear instructions for how to continue conversion after that point sprinkled everywhere. |
|
comment:14
Replying to @kcrisman:
Just to give proper credit: Volker started that project and did most of the work. It's true that I also worked on it in order to make it the default interface, fixing various bugs and adding the "run SageNB" option. |
|
comment:15
Replying to @kcrisman:
I think that is even more of a reason to work towards making sagenb optional.
Are we sure there even are users that keep up with the latest version of sage (e.g. aren't using 6.0 forever or something) and still use sagenb? And even making sagenb optional wouldn't immediately make that impossible, it would just make it a tiny bit more inconvenient. That might be a good thing because then they might either complain here (showing us that there are such users) or realize that it might be time to look into the jupyter notebook.
I agree. |
|
comment:16
Well in the math department at my university (university of Canterbury, New Zealand) they have reasonably recent installs of sage. But when I talk to them they also have hundreds of sagenb notebook because they have been using sage for quite some time. What they are after is literally a mass conversion tool. And even with one, the inertia of the old sagenb here sounds quite big. |
|
comment:17
Ah, good to know. What about that converter kcrisman was talking about? |
|
comment:18
Replying to @timokau:
There is probably a way to script it but it's just no one really want to take that job. I may have to do it for them at some point but that will be a tough sell. |
|
comment:19
Replying to @kiwifb:
Yeah I get that. We could still make the deprecation more obvious and further disentangle sagenb and sage. Maybe a big deprecation warning in 8.3 and then making it optional in 8.4 or something. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
comment:56
OK, so we should keep a copy of the ready to read sagenb docs somewhere (linked at its github project). |
|
comment:57
Replying to @fchapoton:
Are these Python3 warnings/errors from https://patchbot.sagemath.org/log/25382/Ubuntu/16.04/x86_64/4.4.0-134-generic/atlas/2018-10-17%2009:49:44?plugin=python3 |
|
comment:58
I think that the poor patchbot (not smart enough) is troubled by the removal of the files. Or maybe by the accented letters. But this should just be noise. |
|
comment:59
I've made a new release of sagenb, see #26499. Should we also do downgrading sagenb to optional there? |
|
comment:61
On #26499 I've implemented installing sagenb (html) docs to $SAGELOCAL/share/docs/sagenb |
|
comment:62
I think that |
|
comment:63
Thanks very much everyone for handling all this properly so people can still find stuff. |
|
comment:64
Looks good to me. I'll modify https://github.com/sagemath/sagenb/blob/master/README.rst We should also find a way to put it up to doc.sagemath.org, but this is also not for this ticket. |
|
Reviewer: Dima Pasechnik |
|
comment:65
FYI: We will certainly have to remove this tool when sagenb will be removed. |
|
Changed branch from public/25382 to |
|
Changed commit from |
|
comment:68
Unfortunately now it seems that the interact documentation is not in Sage's usual online doc. That will break a number of links out there, plus interact is in many different interfaces to Sage, not just sagenb. |
|
comment:69
Well just like sagenb documentation should not be shipped with sage, sage documentation should not be in sagenb. That means some documentation has be migrated/rewritten in sage proper. |
|
comment:70
sagenb docs are installed in SAGE_LOCAL/share/doc/, among with many others. This is however not at all reflected in the reference manual. I'm not sure how to achieve this with sphinx. By relative paths, like |
|
comment:71
Not sure how its done right now, but intersphinx may be worth looking at: http://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/usage/extensions/intersphinx.html |
|
comment:72
I agree that intersphinx looks like the right tool for the job. |
|
comment:73
In any case, are we agreed that the interact documentation should be visible now? |
because sagenb is not yet available for python3
CC: @embray @jdemeyer @tscrim @kiwifb @vbraun @kcrisman @jhpalmieri
Component: notebook
Author: John Palmieri
Branch:
591e91aReviewer: Dima Pasechnik
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/25382
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: