[Numpy-discussion] Asking proposal review/feedback for GSOC 15

Oğuzhan Ünlü cengoguzhanunlu at gmail.com
Thu Mar 26 07:58:33 EDT 2015


Sorry for a bit late reply. I will express my thoughts for Ralf's
suggestions, respectively.

> Regarding your schedule:
> - I would remove the parts related to benchmarks. There's no nice benchmark
> infrastructure in numpy itself at the moment (that's a separate GSoC idea),
> so the two times 1 week that you have are likely not enough to get
> something off the ground there.

- I think we can do a sample/demo benchmark only based on a library' speed
performance over some basic set of data sets. Couldn't we? Instead of
speed, it could be any other performance parameter, we can decide together.

> - The "implement a flexible interface" part will need some discussion,
> probably it makes sense to first draft a document (call it a NEP - Numpy
> Enhancement Proposal) that lays out the options and makes a proposal.

To be realistic, I don't think I have enough time to complete an
enhancement proposal. Maybe we can talk about it in the first half of

- I wouldn't put "investigate accuracy differences" at the end. What if you
> find out there that you've been working on something for the whole summer
> that's not accurate enough?

However, we can't examine possible accuracy differences without having seen
their real performance (in my case it is 'implementing an interface to
libraries'). Isn't investigating possible libraries for numpy the fountain
head of this project? Integrating chosen library can be possible by a small
set of wrapping functions.

> - The "researching possible options" I would do in the community bonding
> period - when the coding period starts you should have a fairly
> well-defined plan.

I agree with you at this point. After moving this to community bounding
period, I can put a milestone like 'integrating chosen library to numpy'
for 2 weeks. And we decide it would be better to remove benchmark part,
then I would use that part for interface, probably.

> - 3 weeks for implementing the interface looks optimistic.

It was an estimated time, I asked Julian's opinion about it and waiting his
answer. You could be right, I am not familiar with codebase and exact set
of functions to be improved. Since I prepared my schedule to serve as
basis, I think it is understandable if something takes a bit longer or
shorter as compared to what is written on schedule.

> Cheers,
> Ralf

Your suggestions made me able think about project better. Thank you, Ralf.
If you could share your opinions for my thoughts as well, I appreciate.

My proposal is at https://gist.github.com/oguzhanunlu/1f8bf3ffc6ac5c420dd1

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20150326/4da41363/attachment.html>

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list