Differences between revisions 1 and 4 (spanning 3 versions)
⇤ ← Revision 1 as of 2008-02-07 01:15:43 →
Size: 846
Editor: jason
Comment: acceptance criteria for standard packages
← Revision 4 as of 2008-11-14 13:41:56 → ⇥
Size: 882
Editor: anonymous
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 3: Line 3:
This criteria is for''acceptance''of packages, not the criteria for consideration of packages. 1. GPL version 3 compatible license This criteria is for ''acceptance'' of standard packages, not the criteria for consideration of packages.

 1. GPL version 3 compatible license
Line 13: Line 15:
  1. sage-devel +1 votes (and sage-support votes)   1. A certain number of sage-devel +1 votes (and sage-support votes)

Discussions during Sage Days 7

Acceptance Criteria for standard packages

This criteria is for acceptance of standard packages, not the criteria for consideration of packages.

  1. GPL version 3 compatible license
  2. The package must build on our supported architectures and pass the worry test (e.g., what is the possibility of eventually using the package on Windows?)
  3. Quality: It should be "better" than anything else (that passes criteria 1 and 2) and the argument should be made for this. The comparison should be made to both python and other software. Criteria in passing the quality test include:
    1. Speed
    2. Documentation
    3. Usability
    4. Memory leaks
    5. Maintainable
  4. Interest and Demand:
    1. JSAGE vote
    2. A certain number of sage-devel +1 votes (and sage-support votes)
    3. How many downloads of the optional package

days7/discussions (last edited 2008-11-14 13:41:56 by anonymous)