Mailman 3 September 2016 - SciPy-Dev

dense output option in integrate.ode
by Evgeni Burovski 20 Feb '17

20 Feb '17

Hi David, Hi Jim, > I am new to SciPy-dev. Will the dense output option in scipy.integrate.ode > become available in 0.17.0? This is a feature already available in the > original FORTAN, but wasn't implemented in the wrapper. If the feature is sent as a pull request against the scipy master branch, the PR is reviewed by the maintainers of the integrate package and merged into master before the release split, then yes, it would be available in 0.17.0. So far I do not see any progress towards it. > I wrote these dense output extensions that you listed: > > https://github.com/jddmartin/scipy/tree/dense_output_from_dopri5_and_dop853 > https://github.com/jddmartin/dense_output_example_usage > > but I didn't issue any pull request to scipy. I sent this message to the > scipy developers list: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.scientific.devel/19635/ > explaining the changes. I was hoping for some feedback before issuing a > pull request. Ah, I see that the email likely fell through the cracks back in April. Sorry about that. You might want to ping that email thread once more or send a pull request on github (or both). <snip> Cheers, Evgeni

3 5

SciPy governance model
by Ralf Gommers 18 Jan '17

18 Jan '17

Hi all, Starting with the summary of my email of earlier today: I'd like to push on with agreeing on a governance model and document. We had some discussions and a hangout on that last year [1]. In the hangout we decided to give people some time to read up on provided info on how this worked in other projects, the Karl Fogel book, etc. I was supposed to organize a follow-up, but failed to do so until now. I will send a separate email about this shortly. We're now at a point where most other major projects in the scientific Python ecosystem have a formal governance model. Many are modeled after the Jupyter one [2], which defines a BDFL, a steering council and contributors, and a voting system to make decisions (simplified, there's much more - the whole document is worth reading). NumPy chose another model, with a steering council and consensus-based decision making [3]. >From the outside, the Jupyter model seems to be working for them. The NumPy model hasn't been exercised too much yet, but should work well too. There are variations on those two models in use as well (like the Jupyter model minus the BDFL). An email discussion on this topic without a concrete proposal or summary document is likely to go on for a long time and may not converge easily. A video conference is also tricky, with dates/timezones and discussion often going off on tangents. So I have the following proposal: - We start by drafting an extended summary of the various models and getting a sense of which model the core team prefers. - We then work out that model, and bring it back to this list for discussion/finetuning/acceptance. - "We" here is the group of people who indicate, on this list or to me off-list, that they want to participate by the end of this week. Thoughts? Volunteers? Ralf [1] https://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/2015-April/020636.html [2] Jupyter governance doc: https://github.com/jupyter/governance [3] NumPy governance doc: http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy-dev/dev/governance/index.html [4] Producing Open Source software (Karl Fogel): http://producingoss.com/

10 33

Moving SciPy project organization forward
by Ralf Gommers 15 Oct '16

15 Oct '16

Hi all, The next weeks/months I should have quite a bit of bandwidth, which I'd like to use to push forward a few things related to project organization that we've mostly discussed before but never really finalized. The below is a summary of my view on where we are and where we need to go. To discuss individual topics I'll send separate follow-up emails with separate subjects. What we have: - Reasonably good docs for new contributors and core devs. - Established community process for communication and decision making. - A healthy group of active contributors and core devs. - A project that's overall in good shape. What we need: - Set up a mailing list for the core team. - Draft and accept a governance model & docs. - Draft and accept a Code of Conduct (CoC) or "community guidelines" [1] or similar. - Agree on an FSA with NumFOCUS. - Merge the roadmap PR. - Agree on when to do a 1.0 release, and what still has to happen for that. Mailing list ------------ This is not so we do more in private, but just to be more efficient in the small number of conversations that already happens in private (like giving out commit rights). The core team has grown large enough that we tend to forget people or use an old email address. I will set this one up within a week, probably using Google Groups (if anyone has a better idea, please speak up). My plan is to add all active core devs, and send other people with commit rights a personal email about this to ask if they want to be on it (because not everyone follows this list). Governance model & docs ----------------------- We had some discussions and a hangout on that last year [2]. In the hangout we decided to give people some time to read up on provided info on how this worked in other projects, the Karl Fogel book [4], etc. I was supposed to organize a follow-up, but failed to do so until now. I will send a separate email about this shortly. CoC or similar -------------- This is pretty standard to have nowadays, can be welcoming to new people, and is required now by all projects that join NumFOCUS. I'll send a separate email about this later on - probably right after we've merged a governance document. Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement (FSA) ---------------------------------- We need this so we have all our ducks in a row to start dealing with funding/donations in a better way. We did get donations in the past, and even used that money to support the MingwPy project to help improve our Fortran-on-Windows situation. This was OK as a one-off for a very small amount of money, but this needs to be organized better. We also do get people who come up with ideas that would improve SciPy a lot and that we could have supported with some money, had we had the infrastructure for that in place. Let's come back to this as well once we have governance and CoC documents (those are prerequisites). Roadmap PR (gh-2908) -------------------- Let's just pick a date at which the thing [3] has to be merged, in the state it is in then (updated for comments received). And then start improving it with new PRs if needed. Leaving the PR open until everything is perfect hasn't quite worked so far. I'll propose a date 2 weeks from now on the PR itself. SciPy 1.0 --------- We've discussed this several times before. We're now at the point where most of the major gaps have been filled though, so it looks to me like it's time to just pick a date for it (either after or instead of 0.19.0) and then fix up the last things that we think we really need for a 1.0 release. I'll send a separate email about this shortly. Ralf [1] https://github.com/scikit-image/scikit-image-web/pull/36 [2] https://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/2015-April/020636.html [3] https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/2908 [4] http://producingoss.com/

4 13

ANN: SfePy 2016.3
by Robert Cimrman 30 Sep '16

30 Sep '16

I am pleased to announce release 2016.3 of SfePy. Description ----------- SfePy (simple finite elements in Python) is a software for solving systems of coupled partial differential equations by the finite element method or by the isogeometric analysis (limited support). It is distributed under the new BSD license. Home page: http://sfepy.org Mailing list: http://groups.google.com/group/sfepy-devel Git (source) repository, issue tracker: http://github.com/sfepy/sfepy Highlights of this release -------------------------- - Python 3 support - testing with Travis CI - new classes for homogenized coefficients - using argparse instead of optparse For full release notes see http://docs.sfepy.org/doc/release_notes.html#id1 (rather long and technical). Cheers, Robert Cimrman --- Contributors to this release in alphabetical order: Robert Cimrman Jan Heczko Thomas Kluyver Vladimir Lukes

1 0

scipy 0.18.1 release
by Evgeni Burovski 30 Sep '16

30 Sep '16

Hi, It seems to me that we have enough material for a bugfix release 0.18.1. Here's the milestone contents: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/milestone/31 At the moment, remaining issues without a fix are: * A regression in stats.circmean, https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/6420; there is a PR which needs finishing https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/6424. The PR just needs a test. * A regression in stats.ks_2samp, https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/6435. >From the discussion in the issue, it seems that https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/5938 changed behavior more than expected, and figuring out the "correct" thing to do needs more effort that anyone can spend in the short term. So the suggestion is to undo gh-5938 for 0.18.1. If someone thinks something else needs to be included please speak up, here in this thread or comment on a relevant GH issue. I think we should aim to release 0.18.1 by the end of September. Thoughts? Cheers, Evgeni

3 4

Probabilistic Data Structures
by Robert Lucente - Pipeline 27 Sep '16

27 Sep '16

>Data structures that are mostly applicable for big data or streaming applications >are outside the scope of SciPy, so I don't think we'd consider adding them. Thanks for keeping scipy focused.

1 0

Feature enhancement
by Parul Sethi 27 Sep '16

27 Sep '16

Hi, Can I work on Normal inverse gamma distribution’s addition to Scipy (Issue #6528), if no one has taken that up yet. And as I’m a bit new to Open source, so please brief, if any, implementation details to make the PR suitable for scipy. Thanks. -- Parul Sethi (student) B.Tech (IT & Mathematical innovation) Cluster Innovation Centre Delhi University

2 3

removing scipy.weave
by Ralf Gommers 27 Sep '16

27 Sep '16

Hi all, scipy.weave has been deprecated since 0.15.0. It has been available as a standalone package (https://github.com/scipy/weave) for 2.5 years now. So I think it's time to remove it for the next release. PR https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/6593 does that. If you think there's a reason to leave it in for a little bit longer, please comment. Cheers, Ralf

3 3

Welcome Josh Wilson to the core team
by Evgeni Burovski 26 Sep '16

26 Sep '16

Hi, On behalf of the Scipy developers I'd like to welcome Josh Wilson as a member of the core dev team. He contributes since last October, to several subpackages including scipy.special, scipy.optimize and linalg. He authored the cython_special interface, and made multiple nice improvements in scipy.special and other subpackages. I'm looking forward for his continued contributions! Evgeni

3 2

Probabilistic Data Structures
by Robert Lucente - Pipeline 26 Sep '16

26 Sep '16

I am a newbie and not an expert. I ran across the concept of probabilistic data structures. I was wondering if SciPy would consider adding them? Bloom filters seem to fall into this category. Paco Nathan seems to have a really good video at https://www.oreilly.com/learning/probabilistic-data-structures-in-python-new The full version is online available via paid Safari but you can get a free 10 day trial https://www.safaribooksonline.com/oriole/probabilistic-data-structures-in-py thon

2 1