On 03/01/15 20:49, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
i.e., slow-incremental-change has actually worked well in his experience. (And in particular, the np.diagonal issue only comes in as an example to illustrate what he means by the phrase "slow continuous change" -- this particular change hasn't actually broken anything in his code.) OTOH the big problem that motivated his post was that his code is all written against the APIs of the ancient and long-abandoned Numeric project, and he finds the costs of transitioning them to the "new" numpy APIs to be prohibitively expensive, i.e. this big-bang transition broke his code.
Given that a big-bang transition broke his code everywhere, I don't really see why he wants more of them. The question of reproducible research is orthogonal to this, I think. Sturla