<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 1:51 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:josef.pktd@gmail.com" target="_blank">josef.pktd@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Charles R Harris <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:charlesr.harris@gmail.com" target="_blank">charlesr.harris@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span>On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Ralf Gommers <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ralf.gommers@gmail.com" target="_blank">ralf.gommers@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div>Hi all,<br><br></div>I wanted to share this excellent talk, "Rebuilding the cathedral", from Nadia Eghbal about how open source software gets maintained: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS6IpvTWwkQ" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr>v=VS6IpvTWwkQ</a> <br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Thanks for the link, good talk.</div><div><br></div><div>Considering the exponential growth in the number of users, I'm surprised that NumPy/SciPy aren't completely swamped in bug reports. We're falling behind, sure, but not as badly as might be expected.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I think it's because there is no "swamp of bugs".</div><div>I have the impression in keeping roughly track of scipy issues and PRs that PR review and unit testing works very well so that only occasional bugs escape and bug the users.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Agreed, there's no swamp of bugs. Maybe a swamp of rough edges....</div><div><br></div><div>What we do struggle with is lack of progress on big-ticket items, e.g. <br></div><div> - sparse arrays instead of (or in addition to) sparse matrices</div><div> - replacing all the spline implementations (in interpolate, signal, ndimage) with a single clean design<br></div><div> - making ndimage consistent for the "is it a pixel or is it a data point" question</div><div>Basically the stuff one can't do piece by piece but requires someone to sit down for a couple of months. That requires luck (a person with the right skills and motivation and time coming along) or funding.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Ralf</div><div><br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>Josef</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div></div>If you're a maintainer that experiences feeling guilty about not answering questions or reviewing PRs on Github quickly enough (I certainly do sometimes), or are a contributor that wonders why your well crafted PR doesn't get reviewed or merged, watching this talk may explain a few things.<br><br></div>In terms of "rewards" for maintainership of SciPy, we could do better. One obvious thing is a paper that contributors can be co-authors on - this is one thing that we planned but didn't manage to do in the rush to get SciPy 1.0 polished and out the door. I'm seeing a bit of free time coming up, and fixing that omission is on my todo list for that time (really this time) - second email to follow shortly. More substantial rewards ($$) is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem - it requires investing more time than anyone can put in at the moment to apply for funding. It'll be interesting to see how the dynamics of NumPy development change with the two grants for the next two years...</div><div><br></div><div>Finally, a thank you to the people who've jumped in to fill the post-1.0 code review gap we seem to be experiencing - mainly Ilhan, Andrew and Tyler.<br></div><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Chuck </div></div></div></div>
<br></span>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
SciPy-Dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:SciPy-Dev@python.org" target="_blank">SciPy-Dev@python.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.python.org/mailma<wbr>n/listinfo/scipy-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
SciPy-Dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:SciPy-Dev@python.org">SciPy-Dev@python.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.python.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>