On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:26 PM, Ralf Gommers
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nathaniel Smith
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 7:06 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk
Overall, hugely in favour! For detailed comments, it would be good to have a link to a PR; could you put that up?
Well, there's a PR here: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/10706
But, this raises a question :-). (One which also came up here: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/10704#issuecomment-371684170)
There are sensible two workflows we could use (or at least, two that I can think of):
1. We merge updates to the NEPs as we go, so that whatever's in the repo is the current draft. Anyone can go to the NEP webpage at http://numpy.org/neps (WIP, see #10702) to see the latest version of all NEPs, whether accepted, rejected, or in progress. Discussion happens on the mailing list, and line-by-line feedback can be done by quote-replying and commenting on individual lines. From time to time, the NEP author takes all the accumulated feedback, updates the document, and makes a new post to the list to let people know about the updated version.
This is how python-dev handles PEPs.
2. We use Github itself to manage the review. The repo only contains "accepted" NEPs; draft NEPs are represented by open PRs, and rejected NEPs are represented by PRs that were closed-without-merging. Discussion uses Github's commenting/review tools, and happens in the PR itself.
This is roughly how Rust handles their RFC process, for example: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs
Trying to do some hybrid version of these seems like it would be pretty painful, so we should pick one.
Given that historically we've tried to use the mailing list for substantive features/planning discussions, and that our NEP process has been much closer to workflow 1 than workflow 2 (e.g., there are already a bunch of old NEPs already in the repo that are effectively rejected/withdrawn), I think we should maybe continue that way, and keep discussions here?
So my suggestion is discussion should happen on the list, and NEP updates should be merged promptly, or just self-merged. Sound good?
Agreed that overall (1) is better than (2), rejected NEPs should be visible. However there's no need for super-quick self-merge, and I think it would be counter-productive.
Instead, just send a PR, leave it open for some discussion, and update for detailed comments (as well as long in-depth discussions that only a couple of people care about) in the Github UI and major ones on the list. Once it's stabilized a bit, then merge with status "Draft" and update once in a while. I think this is also much more in like with what python-dev does, I have seen substantial discussion on Github and have not seen quick self-merges.
From a quick skim, it looks like of the last 37 commits, only 8 came in through PRs and the other 29 were pushed directly by committers without any review. 3 of the 8 PRs were self-merged immediately after submission, and of the remaining 5 PRs, 4 of them were from external contributors who didn't have commit rights, and the 1 other was a fix to the repo README, rather than an actual PEP change. I don't think I've ever seen any kind of substantive discussion in that repo -- any discussion is mostly restricted to helping new contributors with
Not sure what you mean about python-dev. Are you looking at the peps repository? https://github.com/python/peps procedural stuff, maybe formatting issues or fixes to the PEP tooling. Anyway, just because python-dev does it that way doesn't mean that we have to too. But if we split discussions between GH and the mailing list, then we're definitely going to end up discussing substantive issues there (how do we know which discussions only a couple of people care about?), and trying to juggle that seems confusing to me, plus makes it harder to track down what happened later, after we've had multiple PRs each with their own comments... -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org