Just in terms of descriptors I always find “tool set” to give the impression of being immensely useful, one could garnish it with “essential”. ;) Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 30, 2018, at 09:43, Juan Nunez-Iglesias <jni@fastmail.com> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

A couple of weeks ago I published this blog post:

https://ilovesymposia.com/2018/07/13/the-road-to-scikit-image-1-0/

I didn't publicise it widely because it was in the middle of SciPy 2018 and I had many other things pulling at my attention. I really want to drive this vision forward, but not without further input from the community (ie you guys). So I would really appreciate if you could take a few minutes to read it, then publish your criticisms/comments/wishlist to:

https://github.com/scikit-image/scikit-image/issues/3263

You can also just respond to this list.

I'll prime the discussion with a criticism from Stéfan: "reference" library is not an exciting word to describe scikit-image. What 1-2 adjectives would you use to describe your vision for scikit-image? We want to convey readability, ease of use, accuracy, and (reasonable) performance.

After some reasonable number of comments, I'll do my best to compile them and submit a PR to our documentation that will enshrine the document within an aura of authority. =P

Thanks!

Juan.

PS: The whole discussion is rather timely: Egor Panfilov has drawn our attention (on gitter) to the fact that we have just passed our 10,000th commit! _______________________________________________ scikit-image mailing list scikit-image@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image