On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 12:41 PM Sourav Singh <ssouravsingh12@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I am creating a new conversation since I have created a draft proposal for the project here- https://goo.gl/S3J9Kg
Hi Sourav, thanks for writing that up, that's a good start. Before submission you'll have to add a lot more detail about how to go about the implementation, but there's time for that. I would suggest to focus on how to approach the backend system, because there's a lot of options to do that.
I would be glad to know your views about the proposal and what needs to be done to improve the proposal. I also have a few questions-
1) Would it be fine if I create a PR to SciPy's codebase to adopt pocketfft? The PR could give me an understanding of how to contribute to SciPy's fftpack module.
I would prefer to wait a little bit with that. The branching of 1.16.x in the NumPy repo is imminent (1-3 weeks I expect), and at that point Pocketfft can be merged into NumPy. Then we'll be able to have a discussion with the author, and port things to SciPy. I think having two PRs for Pocketfft integration going on in parallel is a bit much and likely will lead to duplicate work. If you want to try your hand on something in fftpack now, this is probably the best choice of all the open issues: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/5986#issuecomment-313889128
2) I noticed that scipy.ffitpack has fortran sources. What kind of knowledge of fortran is expected of me for this project? I have a basic knowledge of fortran, but I am not very confident enough to write high-level code in the language.
That's a good question. I think it's limited. For the set of function we're replacing, we just dont use the Fortran implementation at all anymore, and instead just have a C implementation. So you'll have to be comfortable in C, as well as in dealing with the build system, but I won't expect you having to make significant changes in Fortran code. Cheers, Ralf