Hi,
I'm done reviewing all the improved docstrings for NumPy, they can be merged now from the doc editor Patch page. Maybe I'll get around to doing the SciPy ones as well this week, but I can't promise that.
There are a few docstrings on the Patch page I did not mark "Ok to apply":
1. the generic docstrings. Some are marked Ready for review, but they refer mostly to "self" and to "generic" which I don't think is very helpful. It would be great if someone could do just one of those docstrings and make it somewhat informative. There are about 50 that can then be done in the same way.
2. get_numpy_include: the docstring is deleted because the function is deprecated. I don't think that is helpful but I'm not sure. Should this be reverted or applied?
Cheers, Ralf
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Ralf Gommers ralf.gommers@googlemail.comwrote:
Hi,
I'm done reviewing all the improved docstrings for NumPy, they can be merged now from the doc editor Patch page. Maybe I'll get around to doing the SciPy ones as well this week, but I can't promise that.
Actually, scipy was a lot less work. Please merge that too.
cheers, ralf
There are a few docstrings on the Patch page I did not mark "Ok to apply":
 the generic docstrings. Some are marked Ready for review, but they refer
mostly to "self" and to "generic" which I don't think is very helpful. It would be great if someone could do just one of those docstrings and make it somewhat informative. There are about 50 that can then be done in the same way.
 get_numpy_include: the docstring is deleted because the function is
deprecated. I don't think that is helpful but I'm not sure. Should this be reverted or applied?
Cheers, Ralf
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Ralf Gommers ralf.gommers@googlemail.comwrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@googlemail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I'm done reviewing all the improved docstrings for NumPy, they can be merged now from the doc editor Patch page. Maybe I'll get around to doing the SciPy ones as well this week, but I can't promise that.
Actually, scipy was a lot less work. Please merge that too.
Sorry to ask again, but it would really be very useful to get those docstrings merged for both scipy and numpy.
The scipy docs merge cleanly, anyone with commit access can do it, like this: 1. Go to http://docs.scipy.org/scipy/patch/ and log in. 2. click on "Select OK to apply" 3. click on "Generate patch" 4. select all the text in the browser and save as a patch. 5. apply patch, commit
For numpy in principle the same procedure, except there are some objects that need the add_newdocs treatment. There are two types of errors, my question is (mainly to Pauli) if they both need the same treatment or a different one. Errors: 1. source location not known, like:
ERROR: numpy.broadcast.next: source location for docstring is not known
2. source location known but failed to find a place to add docstrings, like:
ERROR: Source location for numpy.lib.function_base.iterable known, but failed to find a place for the docstring
Cheers, Ralf
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Ralf Gommers ralf.gommers@googlemail.com wrote:
Sorry to ask again, but it would really be very useful to get those docstrings merged for both scipy and numpy.
I will do this now. Jarrod
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Jarrod Millman millman@berkeley.eduwrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Ralf Gommers ralf.gommers@googlemail.com wrote:
Sorry to ask again, but it would really be very useful to get those docstrings merged for both scipy and numpy.
I will do this now. Jarrod
Thanks a lot! Ralf
OK, I've checked in the scipy doc improvements: http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/changeset/5954 http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/changeset/5955
Thanks to everyone who contributed! I will merge the numpy docs later today.
Is there anything else I need to do on the SciPy documentation editor to indicate that I've merged the changes or will it update itself.
Best, Jarrod
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Jarrod Millman millman@berkeley.edu wrote:
OK, I've checked in the scipy doc improvements: http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/changeset/5954 http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/changeset/5955
Thanks again Jarrod!
Thanks to everyone who contributed! I will merge the numpy docs later today.
Is there anything else I need to do on the SciPy documentation editor to indicate that I've merged the changes or will it update itself.
That should be all I think. Changes should show up in the wiki within a day, at which point the "diff to svn" is empty and the updated docstrings should disappear from the patch page.
Cheers, Ralf
Best, Jarrod _______________________________________________ NumPyDiscussion mailing list NumPyDiscussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpydiscussion
to, 20091001 kello 12:19 0400, Ralf Gommers kirjoitti:
Sorry to ask again, but it would really be very useful to get those docstrings merged for both scipy and numpy.
[clip]
Numpy's new docstrings is are now in SVN too, for the most part. An amazing amount of work was done during the summer, thanks to all who participated!
For numpy in principle the same procedure, except there are some objects that need the add_newdocs treatment. There are two types of errors, my question is (mainly to Pauli) if they both need the same treatment or a different one.
Errors:
 source location not known, like:
ERROR: numpy.broadcast.next: source location for docstring is not known 2. source location known but failed to find a place to add docstrings, like: ERROR: Source location for numpy.lib.function_base.iterable known, but failed to find a place for the docstring
These I didn't commit yet. Mostly, they can be fixed by adding necessary entries to add_newdocs.py. However, some of these may be objects assigning docstrings to which may be technically difficult and requires larger changes. The second error may also indicate a bug in patch generation.
Is there any way to move the existing parts of this thread (i.e., not just future posts, which of course is as simple as posting them there instead) over to scipydev, where it really belongs?
DG
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Pauli Virtanen pav@iki.fi wrote:
to, 20091001 kello 12:19 0400, Ralf Gommers kirjoitti:
Sorry to ask again, but it would really be very useful to get those docstrings merged for both scipy and numpy.
[clip]
Numpy's new docstrings is are now in SVN too, for the most part. An amazing amount of work was done during the summer, thanks to all who participated!
For numpy in principle the same procedure, except there are some objects that need the add_newdocs treatment. There are two types of errors, my question is (mainly to Pauli) if they both need the same treatment or a different one.
Errors:
 source location not known, like:
ERROR: numpy.broadcast.next: source location for docstring is not known 2. source location known but failed to find a place to add docstrings, like: ERROR: Source location for numpy.lib.function_base.iterable known, but failed to find a place for the docstring
These I didn't commit yet. Mostly, they can be fixed by adding necessary entries to add_newdocs.py. However, some of these may be objects assigning docstrings to which may be technically difficult and requires larger changes. The second error may also indicate a bug in patch generation.
 Pauli Virtanen
NumPyDiscussion mailing list NumPyDiscussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpydiscussion
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Ralf Gommers ralf.gommers@googlemail.comwrote:
Hi,
I'm done reviewing all the improved docstrings for NumPy, they can be merged now from the doc editor Patch page. Maybe I'll get around to doing the SciPy ones as well this week, but I can't promise that.
Thank you very much, Ralf!
There are a few docstrings on the Patch page I did not mark "Ok to apply":
 the generic docstrings. Some are marked Ready for review, but they refer
mostly to "self" and to "generic" which I don't think is very helpful. It would be great if someone could do just one of those docstrings and make it somewhat informative.
I couldn't agree more; unfortunately, I've been trying, highly unsuccessfully, to get someone to do this for a while  I promoted them in the hopes that a reviewer saying they needed an expert's eye would be more authoritative  I guess we're about to find out if that's the case. ;)
DG
There are about 50 that can then be done in the same way.
 get_numpy_include: the docstring is deleted because the function is
deprecated. I don't think that is helpful but I'm not sure. Should this be reverted or applied?
Cheers, Ralf
NumPyDiscussion mailing list NumPyDiscussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpydiscussion
participants (4)

David Goldsmith

Jarrod Millman

Pauli Virtanen

Ralf Gommers