[Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

Ralf Gommers ralf.gommers at gmail.com
Tue Dec 5 19:12:27 EST 2017

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Jarrod Millman <millman at berkeley.edu>

> Hi all,
> Since we expect to be writing some NEPs in the near future, Nathaniel
> and I were looking at how they're organized, and realized that the
> process is a bit underspecified and it's a hard to tell the status of
> things.
> So I'm thinking of putting together some better tools and
> documentation, and wanted to get some quick feedback before I
> runoff in the wrong direction.
> The goal is not to add a ton of new process, but to better document the
> current
> process.  I would also like to add a little additional structure to make it
> easier to understand the process for new contributors and to make the
> status
> of NEPS easier to understand.
> After reviewing the existing system, looking at how other projects do
> this, and discussing this with Nathaniel, I tentatively plan to work
> on the following:
> 1. Standardize the NEP metadata (e.g., whether they're
>    draft/accepted/implemented)
> 2. Write a NEP to explain the purpose and process (think PEP 1)
> 3. Create a NEP template (think PEP 12)
> 4. Add metadata to old NEPs
> 5. Automate updating the NEP website and autogenerating the index
>    based on the NEP metadata.

That all sounds good to me.

> Nathaniel and I have already started discussing some of these items
> and would love to get some feedback soon.
> Assuming that sounds good, my tentative next steps are:
> - I'll draft a purpose and process NEP based on PEP 1 and a few other
> projects.
> - I'll also create a draft NEP template.

sounds good

- I'll move the NEPs into their own repo (something like numpy/neps),

This doesn't sound ideal to me - NEPs are important pieces of
documentation, so I'd rather keep them included in the main docs.

  and set up an automated system (RTD or Github pages) to
>   render and publish them with some useful index.

If you could copy over the scipy method to rebuild the docs on each merge
into master, that would achieve the same purpose. Compare
https://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy-dev/reference/ (outdated) vs
https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy-dev/reference/ (redirects to
http://scipy.github.io/devdocs/, always up-to-date).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20171206/4998f9e0/attachment.html>

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list