[IPython-dev] Proposal: soft moratorium on re-architecting for 5.0
Brian Granger
ellisonbg at gmail.com
Mon Jun 29 14:15:25 EDT 2015
I am +1 on having separate branches for ongoing 4.x work that include
more than just bug fixes - especially for the notebook and widgets. I
have a slight preference to have master always be the newer stuff, but
don't feel too strongly about that.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Jonathan Frederic
<jon.freder at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I wanted to +1 the proposal to start creating branches for new versions
>> when a feature freeze occurs.
>
>
> +1 here too, I'm going to do that with ipywidgets for SciPy, create a 5.x
> branch. There's a lot of stuff I want to get a jump start on, and SciPy is
> a great time to do it. I don't want it to end up like numerous other
> experiments, which end up getting thrown out and redone completely just
> because of stagmentation and rebase difficulty.
>
> WRT to the documentation debt, I think it's important to remind everyone
> that that is intentional! I've looked at adding JS docs a couple times now,
> but when I brought it up we've decided as a group that it was lower priority
> because we did not want to commit JavaScript APIs that we know will change.
>
> I think when we figure out how the front-end packaging and component
> refactor will work, we definitely want to commit to **something**.
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Sylvain Corlay <sylvain.corlay at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I wanted to +1 the proposal to start creating branches for new versions
>> when a feature freeze occurs. Independently of the discussion on phosphor, I
>> completely agree with Min on the diagnosis that there is not enough
>> available parallel work.
>>
>> Regarding phosphor and the work on refactoring the front-end, thanks for
>> creating the centralized phosphor notebook repository in the organization. I
>> did some experiments lately with the widgets and did not know where this
>> could fall, or how to share it without requiring it to install phosphor etc.
>> Coordination is also important for new developments, even when they have not
>> yet achieved the stability of the main components of the project.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Sylvain
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Jason Grout <jason at jasongrout.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/26/15 19:45, Fernando Perez wrote:
>>>
>>> While I hear very much the spirit of what you are saying, and I
>>> certainly think that we can't lose sight that the *only* thing that
>>> ultimately matters is whether we serve our users well or not, there's a
>>> big piece that is already burning under us that probably can't wait. In
>>> fact, at the last dev meeting, Jason already posted his new draft code
>>> in this direction:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/jasongrout/phosphor-notebook
>>>
>>>
>>> I just wanted to mention that I support what Fernando, Brian, and Chris
>>> have said about moving forward with refactoring the notebook. We're making
>>> good progress, even while still ramping up. For example, Steven Silvester
>>> has put a lot of work recently in porting over the kernel javascript to
>>> Typescript and phosphor (along with dependencies):
>>>
>>> https://github.com/jasongrout/phosphor-notebook/pull/2
>>>
>>> I just put in an in-progress pull request for documenting the API for
>>> kernels, kernelspecs, and sessions (which I realized when looking at the
>>> kernel javascript file was woefully undocumented/incorrectly documented):
>>> https://github.com/jupyter/notebook/pull/173. This shows our refactoring
>>> work is also having an immediate direct impact on the current notebook as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> In another message on this thread, Min suggested having a 5.x branch for
>>> further development, like the phosphor notebook. For now, I think the
>>> phosphor notebook can proceed as a separate project - it's totally a
>>> front-end thing at this point, and we're doing enough code clean-up and
>>> rewriting from js to typescript that I think it's all right to start in a
>>> fresh repo. Which brings up another point: can we make an official Jupyter
>>> repo for the phosphor notebook work, rather than using my personal repo?
>>> I'm happy to continue hosting
>>> https://github.com/jasongrout/phosphor-notebook/ in my personal github
>>> account for the time being, or set up a temporary organization so we can
>>> collaborate more effectively, but I think it would make more sense to bump
>>> it up to an experimental repo in the jupyter github organization, developed
>>> in parallel with the current notebook.
>>>
>>> Thomas, one thing to consider is that us working on a phosphor notebook
>>> doesn't preclude interested people from enhancing the existing notebook in
>>> the short term. We'd like the phosphor notebook to get to a comparable
>>> state with the current notebook as quickly as possible, but it will still
>>> take some time.
>>>
>>> Also, I totally agree with Thomas that dogfooding the notebook (and
>>> watching/helping others actually use it to get work done) is *extremely*
>>> important to understanding what we want here. And I also agree with others
>>> on this thread that documentation is sorely lacking. We'll be working on
>>> that in the phosphor notebook as we go along too.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IPython-dev mailing list
>>> IPython-dev at scipy.org
>>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/ipython-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPython-dev mailing list
>> IPython-dev at scipy.org
>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/ipython-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPython-dev mailing list
> IPython-dev at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/ipython-dev
>
--
Brian E. Granger
Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo
@ellisonbg on Twitter and GitHub
bgranger at calpoly.edu and ellisonbg at gmail.com
More information about the IPython-dev
mailing list