Thanks for starting the discussion, Charles.
Merging of the re-factor is a priority for me once I get back
from last 9 weeks of travel I have been on (I have been travelling for
business 7 of the last 9 weeks).
Ilan Schnell has already been looking at how to accomplish the
merge (and I have been reading up on Git so that I understand the
commit model better and can possibly help without being a complete
neophyte with git). Pauli's script will be very helpful.
I'm very enthused about the bug-fixes, memory-leak closures, and
new tests that have been added on the re-factor branch. I'm also
interested in getting more community feedback on the ndarray library
C-API, and the other changes that have been made. This feedback will
be essential before the changes can become NumPy 2.0. I would also
like to see a few more NEPs become part of NumPy 2.0 over the next
several months. I have a long wish list of additional NEPS that I've
only sketched in quick drafts at this point as well --- datetime
finishes, geometry-information, i.e. dimension and index labels,
reduce-by implementation, indirect arrays, and generator array
objects.
My initial guess as to how quickly we would have a NumPy 2.0 was
ambitious partly because I have had almost zero time personally to work
on it, and partly because we have been resource constrained which has
pushed us to draw out the project a bit. But, I've come up with a
long list of new features for NumPy 2.0 that I would like to hash out
on the mailing lists over the next months as well. My hope is for
NumPy 2.0 to come out by the end of Q1 sometime next year. My hopes
may have to be tempered by limited time resources, of course.
At the same time, the work on the .NET framework has pushed us
to move more of SciPy to a Cython-generated set. There are additional
things I would like to see SciPy improve on as well, but I am not sure
who is going to work on them. If I had my dream, there would be more
modularity to the packages, and an improved packaging system --- and of
course, porting to Python 3k. I would like to see core SciPy be a
smaller set containing a few core packages. (linear algebra,
statistics, optimization, interpolation, signal processing, and image
processing). Then, I would like to see scipy.<module> packages
which are released and packaged separately with the whole system
available on github.
The past couple of years have been very busy for me (and
continue to be busy), but I am hoping that next year will allow me more
time to spend on promoting sprints, and participating more in the
community. I will not have the time I used to have when I was a
full-time academic, but I plan to be more involved in helping promote
SciPy development. With SciPy moved over to github, I think that will
even be possible without my stepping on everybody else's hard work.
-Travis
I have forwarded th
On Nov 11, 2010, at 9:30 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Pauli
Virtanen
<pav@iki.fi> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:38:53 -0700, Charles R
Harris wrote:
> I'd like to open a discussion about the steps to be followed in
merging
> the numpy refactor. I have two concerns about this. First, the
refactor
> repository branched off some time ago and I'm concerned about code
> divergence, not just in the refactoring, but in fixes going into
the
> master branch on github. Second, it is likely that a flag day will
look
> like the easiest solution and I think we should avoid that.
What is a "flag day"?
It all goes in as one big commit.
> At the moment it seems to me that the
changes can be broken up into
> three categories:
>
> 1) Movement of files and resulting changes to the build process.
> 2) Refactoring of the files for CPython.
> 3) Addition of an IronPython interface.
>
> I'd like to see 1) go into the master branch as soon as possible,
> followed by 2) so that the changes can be tested and fixes will go
into
> a common repository. The main github repository can then be
branched for
> adding the IronPython stuff. In short, I think it would be usefull
to
> abandon the teoliphant fork at some point and let the work
continue in a
> fork of the numpy repository.
The first step I would like to see is to re-graft the teoliphant branch
onto the current Git history -- currently, it's still based on Git-SVN.
Re-grafting would make incremental merging and tracking easier. Luckily,
this is easy to do thanks to Git's data model (I have a script for it),
and I believe it could be useful to do it ASAP.
I agree that would be an excellent start. Speaking of repo surgery, you
might find esr's latest
project of interest.
<snip>
Chuck
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
---
Travis Oliphant
Enthought, Inc.
1-512-536-1057
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion