[Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

[Travis Oliphant]

I Would like to hear the opinions of others on that point,  but yes,  I think that is an appropriate procedure. 

Travis 

--
Travis Oliphant
(on a mobile)
512-826-7480


On Feb 29, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Travis Oliphant <travis at continuum.io> wrote:
>> We already use the NEP process for such decisions.   This discussion came from simply from the *idea* of writing such a NEP.
>> 
>> Nothing has been decided.  Only opinions have been shared that might influence the NEP.  This is all pretty premature, though ---  migration to C++ features on a trial branch is some months away were it to happen.
> 
> Fernando can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was asking a
> governance question.   That is: would you (as BDF$N) consider the
> following guideline:
> 
> "As a condition for accepting significant changes to Numpy, for each
> significant change, there will be a NEP.  The NEP shall follow the
> same model as the Python PEPs - that is - there will be a summary of
> the changes, the issues arising, the for / against opinions and
> alternatives offered.  There will usually be a draft implementation.
> The NEP will contain the resolution of the discussion as it relates to
> the code"
> 
> For example, the masked array NEP, although very substantial, contains
> little discussion of the controversy arising, or the intended
> resolution of the controversy:
> 
> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/3f685a1a990f7b6e5149c80b52436fb4207e49f5/doc/neps/missing-data.rst
> 
> I mean, although it is useful, it is not in the form of a PEP, as
> Fernando has described it.
> 
> Would you accept extending the guidelines to the NEP format?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Matthew
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion