Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #10295, comment 34


Ignore:
Timestamp:
05/10/15 23:11:25 (6 years ago)
Author:
fbissey
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #10295, comment 34

    initial v1  
    11Right, I am hearing you. This is a definite problem. So is keeping dead software. If we are keeping the pexpect 2.0 branch in for performance issue it becomes the responsibility of sage developers to maintain it and add new features like the one Bill wants.
    22
    3 Effectively we are maintaining a fork and if we are going that way I would it to be formalized with a different name and possibly integrated in the sage code itself. This is so people don't get upgraded to a different pexpect through pip if they are using it. Also while our core functionality uses this pexpect, we don't want to block other packages that would need a newer pexpect.
     3Effectively we are maintaining a fork and if we are going that way I would like it to be formalized with a different name and possibly integrated in the sage code itself. This is so people don't get upgraded to a different pexpect through pip if they are using it. Also while our core functionality uses this pexpect, we don't want to block other packages that would need a newer pexpect.
    44
    55That is my opinion on the matter. The other way is to work, possibly with upstream, to solve that latency problem in newer versions.