[IPython-dev] IPython development: course adjustment required
ellisonbg.net at gmail.com
Sun Jun 1 23:02:30 EDT 2008
> Sorry to jump in late on the discussion. As the token frontend guy, I
> think this sounds like a good idea too. My understanding is that
> following the reintegration, ipython0 will instantly be the
> terminal-based front-end for the ipython1 features. That's great. We
> can continue efforts to make Twisted-based GUI frontends for ipython1.
> But, how are we planning to make ipython0 features (such as macros
> etc.) available via the engineservice interfaces? My (weak)
> understanding of the ipython0 codebase is that much of the ipython0
> Interpreter is tied to the terminal/readline interface. Integrating
> that with Twisted is (as we've just seen) difficult. So, is there a
> plan yet for using ipython0's features in non-terminal-based use
Another thing that we should mention, that is relevant to your work on
the Cocoa frontend it that all of the stuff in ipython1 that you are
depending on for your Cocoa frontend will be moved into ipython0 very
soon (mainly ipython1.kernel and ipython1.core). As Fernando
mentioned, this doesn't mean that it will magically and immediately
grow all the extra ipython0 capabilities. But your Cocoa stuff should
work fine with a few import changes. We will keep you posted.
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Fernando Perez <fperez.net at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> after much thought and hand-wringing, Brian and I would like to bring
>> up an idea for a change of plans in the development process that will
>> hopefully make us all happier, more efficient, and will lead to more
>> usable code sooner, which is after all what we want. Please pitch in
>> with any comments you may have, ideas, dissent, etc.
>> The current ipython development process is, we think, far less
>> efficient than it could be. Coupled with the fact that we have a
>> rather small core team, this is leading to sometimes near paralysis.
>> It is particularly unfair to Ville, who is tasked with maintaining an
>> actively (and very widely) used project on a codebase with no clear
>> future, and yet we have in ipython1 a codebase with split-personality
>> disorder: lovely parallel computing interfaces but a bunch of "we'll
>> get there soon" components that are all half-finished.
>> In all this, Brian and Min try to push ip1 forward, Barry Wark works
>> on Cocoa, Laurent works on the WX sell, Ondrej helps us with docs but
>> that work is half-repeated in ip0 and ip1, etc. And in the meantime,
>> I'm feeling like I'm straddling a chasm (ip0-ip1) that keeps on
>> growing wider, with the so far unfulfilled promised of building a
>> bridge across it, and no realistic plan for such a bridge to really be
>> built any time soon. I still come back to issues with ip0 on
>> occasion, and I try to work on ip1, but the split is too much for my
>> limited time. This has left me personally disenchanted with the
>> project, feeling that I'm not really doing anything of quality on any
>> So our current rethinking is: forge ahead with what we've been calling
>> IPython0, and begin integrating the various key (and functional)
>> components of IPython1 into it one by one. The IPython0/1 split will
>> end, and we will use all the good pieces of IPython1 to add
>> functionality to ip0 without losing its current features. At each 0.X
>> release we'll clearly document any api breakage that might happen.
>> This would bring us a number of benefits:
>> * We would be forced to only commit _finished_ stuff to ipython0
>> because otherwise there will be lots of pissed off IPython0 users.
>> * We go from a situation where few people are trying our new code, to
>> one where thousands of people are trying it.
>> * If we moved stuff in IPython.* -> IPython.core.*, we could then
>> move things in ipython1.kernel.* -> IPython.kernel.*. It one simple
>> step, _every_ IPython user has parallel computing at their finger
>> tips. With our current approach, the parallel computing stuff will
>> always be "over there" for your average IPython user and won't be used
>> until ipython1 is a full replacement for ipython0.
>> * It would be sooo much simpler to manage one code base and documentation set.
>> * It would be much easier to explain to people that state of ipython.
>> "IPython is just IPython and now it has parallel computing" The
>> ambitious plans for refactoring, notebooks, frontends are underway,
>> but IPython is still just IPython.
>> * The parallel computing stuff would instantly make it into all the
>> Linux distros.
>> * Design problems will emerge much faster as we will always have a
>> completely working terminal based IPython to test everything on.
>> Things like -pylab can't be broken, not even for a second. Whereas in
>> ipython1, we are a long way off from even thinking about such things.
>> * We don't have to handle the questions like "I want to implement
>> such and such in IPython, should I use ipython0 or ipython1"
>> * Our entire combined effort (limited as it may be, we have some
>> great people on board) can be focused on a single problem, and we can
>> all trust that we're working together for the same goal.
>> In retrospect, I take full blame for any mistakes that I pushed for.
>> While having a clean slate for thinking IPython1 ideas was probably
>> beneficial, and none of that work is going to be lost (we'll just fold
>> it piece by piece into the trunk), some of my ideas led to this
>> paralysis. Live and learn.
>> So, any comments? We'd like to move forward *quickly* with this idea.
>> We'd try to make a series of much more frequent releases, one for each
>> key component we add in, so that little by little the baby can
>> actually grow. There will be an initial period where I would prepare
>> the ground in ip0 for the ip1 components to land in while Brian
>> finishes a couple of things he has in his local branch, but we're
>> talking a couple of weeks, not years.
>> IPython-dev mailing list
>> IPython-dev at scipy.org
> IPython-dev mailing list
> IPython-dev at scipy.org
More information about the IPython-dev