[Numpy-discussion] NA masks in the next numpy release?

[Robert Kern]

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 20:58, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Charles R Harris
> <charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I was surprised today to notice that Mark's NA mask support appears to
>>> > have been merged into numpy master and is described in the draft
>>> > release notes[1]. My surprise is because merging it to mainline
>>> > without any discussion on the list seems to contradict what what
>>> > Travis wrote in July, that it was being developed as an experiment and
>>> > explicitly *not* intended to be merged without further discussion:
>>> >
>>> > "Basically, because there is not consensus and in fact a strong and
>>> > reasonable opposition to specific points, Mark's NEP as proposed
>>> > cannot be accepted in its entirety right now. However,  I believe an
>>> > implementation of his NEP is useful and will be instructive in
>>> > resolving the issues and so I have instructed him to spend Enthought
>>> > time on the implementation. Any changes that need to be made to the
>>> > API before it is accepted into a released form of NumPy can still be
>>> > made even after most of the implementation is completed as far as I
>>> > understand it."[2]
>>> >
>>> > Can anyone explain what the plan is here? Is the idea to continue the
>>> > discussion and rework the API while it is in master, delaying the next
>>> > release for as long as it takes to achieve consensus? Or is there some
>>> > mysterious git thing going on where "master" is actually an
>>> > experimental branch and the real mainline development is happening
>>> > somewhere else? Or something else I'm not thinking of? Please help me
>>> > understand.
>>>
>>> I don't know about you, but watching the development from a distance
>>> it became increasingly clear to me that this would happen.  I"m sure
>>> you've had the experience as I have, of mixing several desirable
>>> changes into the same set of commits, and it's hard work to avoid
>>> this.  I imagine this is what happened with Mark's MA changes.
>>>
>>> The result is actually an extension of the problems of the original
>>> discussion, which is a feeling that we the community do not have a say
>>> in the development.
>>>
>>> I think this email might be a plea to the numpy steering group, and to
>>> Travis in particular, to see if we can use a discussion of this series
>>> of events to decide on a good way to proceed in future.
>>>
>>
>> Oh come, people had plenty to say, you and Nathaniel in particular.  Mark
>> pointed to the pull request, anyone who was interested could comment on it,
>> Benjamin Root did so, for instance. The fact things didn't go the way you
>> wanted doesn't indicate insufficient discussion. And you are certainly
>> welcome to put together an alternative and put up a pull request.
>
> I was also guessing that something like this would be the reply to
> Nathaniel's post.

But it wasn't. It was a reply to your message.

> I think this reply is rude because it implies some sort of sour-grapes
> from Nathaniel, when he is politely referring back to an explicit
> reassurance from Travis.

What Travis assured did happen, just on the pull request (on which
everyone's input was requested and where most "should this be merged?"
discussions are *meant* to happen) rather than on the mailing list.

-- 
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as
though it had an underlying truth."
  -- Umberto Eco