Mailman 3 October 2011 - scikit-image

Re: releasing & packaging vs. renaming
by Nelle Varoquaux 09 Oct '11

09 Oct '11

2011/10/9 Stéfan van der Walt <stefan(a)sun.ac.za> > 2011/10/8 Stéfan van der Walt <stefan(a)sun.ac.za>: > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Tony Yu <tsyu80(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Agreed: there's definitely a wide range of activity among the scikits. > >> sklearn and statsmodels are probably a couple of the more active ones, > so > >> they'd be good examples to follow. And I also agree that changing the > name > >> sooner, rather than later, would be best. +1 > > > > Is there a preference between `skimage` and `skimg` ? > > Actually, `ski` is also available. Three letters--not too hard to > type, doesn't sound awful (es-kay-eye for scikits image), and after > all--it's just a module name :) > I don't whether you'd take this in account, but it's quite hard to google. Googling sklearn directly links to the scikit-learn documentation. Same with statsmodels. Cheers, Nelle > Cheers > Stéfan >

1 0

Re: releasing & packaging vs. renaming
by Stéfan van der Walt 09 Oct '11

09 Oct '11

2011/10/8 Stéfan van der Walt <stefan(a)sun.ac.za>: > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Tony Yu <tsyu80(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Agreed: there's definitely a wide range of activity among the scikits. >> sklearn and statsmodels are probably a couple of the more active ones, so >> they'd be good examples to follow. And I also agree that changing the name >> sooner, rather than later, would be best. +1 > > Is there a preference between `skimage` and `skimg` ? Actually, `ski` is also available. Three letters--not too hard to type, doesn't sound awful (es-kay-eye for scikits image), and after all--it's just a module name :) Cheers Stéfan

1 0

Re: releasing & packaging vs. renaming
by Emmanuelle Gouillart 09 Oct '11

09 Oct '11

On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 11:17:32PM -0700, StÃ¯Â¿Â½fan van der Walt wrote: > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Tony Yu <tsyu80(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Agreed: there's definitely a wide range of activity among the scikits. > > sklearn and statsmodels are probably a couple of the more active ones, so > > they'd be good examples to follow. And I also agree that changing the name > > sooner, rather than later, would be best. +1 > Is there a preference between `skimage` and `skimg` ? skimage sounds easier to pronounce, I think. Emmanuelle

1 0

Re: releasing & packaging vs. renaming
by Stéfan van der Walt 09 Oct '11

09 Oct '11

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Tony Yu <tsyu80(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Agreed: there's definitely a wide range of activity among the scikits. > sklearn and statsmodels are probably a couple of the more active ones, so > they'd be good examples to follow. And I also agree that changing the name > sooner, rather than later, would be best. +1 Is there a preference between `skimage` and `skimg` ? Regards Stéfan

1 0

Re: releasing & packaging vs. renaming
by Andreas Mueller 09 Oct '11

09 Oct '11

On 10/08/2011 10:23 PM, StÃ¯Â¿Â½fan van der Walt wrote: > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Emmanuelle Gouillart > <emmanuelle.gouillart(a)nsup.org> wrote: >> package, that we had in July (going from scikits.image to skimage, see >> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=fr#!topic/scikits-image/TcxVkGqTKOk). >> If we think that we're going to rename one day, then maybe we should do >> it as soon as possible, because otherwise we're going to have problems >> with package names: users will be confused, Yaroslav is going to have to >> make transition packages, and there will be problems on Pypi too. I have >> at home one of the developers of the scikit learn (GaÃ¯Â¿Â½l Varoquaux), who's >> telling me that they are happy about the renaming (scikit.learn -> >> sklearn), but that it created a lot of confusion for packaging. If we > I was hesitant to do this initially--'skimage' doesn't sound > particularly appealing; but I think for uniformity across scikits, and > to sort out the namespace issues, we may just as well. I know about the sklearn rename but what are the other scikits doing? There seem to be quite a lot of projects: http://scikits.appspot.com/scikits If the sklearn people are happy with their rename, maybe that's the way to go. Cheers, Andy

3 2

example gallery
by Emmanuelle Gouillart 09 Oct '11

09 Oct '11

Hello, I just wanted to bring to your attention that it is now possible to include in the documentation python scripts (in doc/examples), that are transformed into a rst page (including the code) when the doc is built. If the script a) is named `plot_xxx.py` and b) generates a matplotlib figure, then an image of the figure is displayed on the corresponding documentation page, and a thumbnail of the figure is added to the gallery of examples. I think we all love matplotlib's gallery, which is very useful to find how to do specific stuff, so I hope our gallery might as well help users to find out how to do specific tasks. It may be especially useful for someone who doesn't have the right keywords for a google/sphinx text search. The code for generating the example pages and the gallery was shamelessly taken from the scikit learn codebase! (see their gallery on http://scikit-learn.sourceforge.net/stable/auto_examples/index.html) So, it might be a good idea to a) write more examples for the gallery, and b) when new functions are added to the scikit, write systematically such examples for the doc. Cheers, Emmanuelle

2 1

Re: releasing & packaging vs. renaming
by Emmanuelle Gouillart 09 Oct '11

09 Oct '11

> I was hesitant to do this initially--'skimage' doesn't sound > particularly appealing; but I think for uniformity across scikits, and > to sort out the namespace issues, we may just as well. > If you're in favour, please raise your hand. I'm in favour of renaming (for example to skimage), in order to simplify the namespace. So I raise my hand :-) Emmanuelle

1 0

releasing & packaging vs. renaming
by Emmanuelle Gouillart 09 Oct '11

09 Oct '11

Hi all, I was very happy to see that StÃ¯Â¿Â½fan and Yaroslav had been working on a debian/ubuntu package, this should really increase the visibility of our scikit. Then I was reminded of the discussion on renaming the package, that we had in July (going from scikits.image to skimage, see https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=fr#!topic/scikits-image/TcxVkGqTKOk). If we think that we're going to rename one day, then maybe we should do it as soon as possible, because otherwise we're going to have problems with package names: users will be confused, Yaroslav is going to have to make transition packages, and there will be problems on Pypi too. I have at home one of the developers of the scikit learn (GaÃ¯Â¿Â½l Varoquaux), who's telling me that they are happy about the renaming (scikit.learn -> sklearn), but that it created a lot of confusion for packaging. If we hope to increase the number of users significantly in the future, maybe we should rename before the release... (I truly apologize for writing this one day before the programmed release) Another option would be to delay the debian packaging to 0.4, and rename in 0.4. What do you think? Emmanuelle

2 1

Re: Release progress
by Stéfan van der Walt 06 Oct '11

06 Oct '11

Hi everyone, Here's an update on progress towards the 0.3 release. 2011/9/26 Stéfan van der Walt <stefan(a)sun.ac.za>: > - Merge: > > https://github.com/scikits-image/scikits.image/pull/19 [CellProfiler > morphology] [will also require minor moving around of files] This turned out to be a much bigger job than anticipated. The cpmorphology module is large, and after discussions with Emmanuelle we decided to integrate it in functional pieces (one PR each). We've given ourselves until Thursday to bring over two core pieces of functionality: watershed and skeletonization. The rest will have to wait until 0.4. > I'd like for 0.3 to also have Debian packaging. I was originally > planning to do our own Windows binary releases, but I don't think I'll > have time to setup the appropriate environment in time. The Debian packaging is done, and lives in the 'debian' branch on the main repo. Changes still required: * Update the license file * Write a man-page for scivi I'll be tagging 0.3 on Sunday. What doesn't get in this round will have to wait until 0.4, but unlike the enormous lag between 0.2.2 and 0.3, we hope to release 0.4 in about a month's time (and keep doing that!). Thanks for everyone's help so far! I've listed the people who contributed to 0.3 below... if your name is missing, let me know. Regards Stéfan Damian Eads Chris Colbert Zachary Pincus Emmanuelle Gouillart James Turner Luis Pedro Coelho Thouis (Ray) Jones Dan Farmer Pieter Holtzhausen Zach Pincus Tony S Yu Martin Bergtholdt Kyle Mandli Neil Muller Gael Varoquaux Andreas Mueller

1 0