You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It seems to me that this is not particularly a feature that is tied to AA, but could be interesting for other packages as well that do not want the burden of taking the whole of AA as a dependency.
In particular, this would apply to Polymake.jl that only has AA as a dependency because of the banner code. Every minor release of AA makes a PR on each of these downstream packages necessary (e.g. oscar-system/Polymake.jl#485). Thus I think, moving this to a separate package only needs some moderate amount of work right now, but reduces the overhead each AA release has and makes it easier to update and release updates to the banner hiding code.
Exactly this question was brought up and discussed during the banner issue. The PIs decided against it for various reasons. Even though I agree with your suggestion, I think we should not restart this discussion.
It also comes down to having a plan to reduce the number of repositories we have to maintain....just imagine all our projects (well, AA, Nemo, Hecke, Oscar, Singular.jl, ...) would be in a single repo (by magic) available as individual packages (more magic). How much easier our life would be....
It seems to me that this is not particularly a feature that is tied to AA, but could be interesting for other packages as well that do not want the burden of taking the whole of AA as a dependency.
In particular, this would apply to Polymake.jl that only has AA as a dependency because of the banner code. Every minor release of AA makes a PR on each of these downstream packages necessary (e.g. oscar-system/Polymake.jl#485). Thus I think, moving this to a separate package only needs some moderate amount of work right now, but reduces the overhead each AA release has and makes it easier to update and release updates to the banner hiding code.
What do you think? @benlorenz @lkastner @fingolfin
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: