Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview
+1 on the NEP guideline As part of a team building a scientific analysis library, I'm attempting to understand the current state of NumPy development and its likely future (with a view to contributing if appropriate). The proposed NEP process would make that a whole lot easier. And if nothing else, it would reduce the chance of me posting questions about topics that had already been discussed/decided! Without the process the NEPs become another potential source of confusion and mixed messages. On 1 March 2012 03:02, Travis Oliphant wrote:
I Would like to hear the opinions of others on that point,
but yes, I think that is an appropriate procedure.
Travis
--
Travis Oliphant
(on a mobile)
512-826-7480
On Feb 29, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Matthew Brett
<matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Travis Oliphant
<travis@continuum.io> wrote:
We already use the NEP process for such decisions. This
discussion came from simply from the *idea* of writing such a NEP.
Nothing has been decided. Only opinions have been shared
that might influence the NEP. This is all pretty premature,
though --- migration to C++ features on a trial branch is
some months away were it to happen.
Fernando can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was asking a
governance question. That is: would you (as BDF$N) consider the
following guideline:
"As a condition for accepting significant changes to Numpy, for each
significant change, there will be a NEP. The NEP shall follow the
same model as the Python PEPs - that is - there will be a summary of
the changes, the issues arising, the for / against opinions and
alternatives offered. There will usually be a draft implementation.
The NEP will contain the resolution of the discussion as it
relates to
the code"
For example, the masked array NEP, although very
substantial, contains
little discussion of the controversy arising, or the intended
resolution of the controversy:
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/3f685a1a990f7b6e5149c80b52
436fb4207e49f5/doc/neps/missing-data.rst
I mean, although it is useful, it is not in the form of a PEP, as
Fernando has described it.
Would you accept extending the guidelines to the NEP format?
Best,
Matthew
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
participants (1)
-
Richard Hattersley