[Numpy-discussion] Dropping support for Accelerate

Ilhan Polat ilhanpolat at gmail.com
Sat Jul 29 06:26:19 EDT 2017


Yet another twirl to the existing spaghetti

https://www.continuum.io/blog/developer-blog/open-sourcing-anaconda-accelerate





On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Matthew Brett <
> matthew.brett at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>> I updated the bit about OpenBLAS wheel with some more information on
> >>>>> the status of that work. It's not super important, but FYI.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe remove the bit (of my text) that you crossed out, or removed the
> >>>> strikethrough and qualify?  At the moment it's confusing, because I
> >>>> believe what I wrote is correct, so leaving in there and crossed out
> >>>> looks kinda weird.
> >>>
> >>> Eh, it's a little weird because there's no specification needed
> >>> really, we can implement it any time we want to. It was stalled for a
> >>> long time because I ran into arcane technical problems dealing with
> >>> the MacOS linker, but that's solved and now it's just stalled due to
> >>> lack of attention.
> >>>
> >>> I deleted the text but feel free to qualify further if you think it's
> useful.
> >>
> >> Are you saying that we should consider this specification approved
> >> already?  Or that we should go ahead without waiting for approval?  I
> >> guess the latter.  I guess you're saying you think there would be no
> >> bad consequences for doing this if the spec subsequently changed
> >> before being approved?  It might be worth adding something like that
> >> to the text, in case there's somebody who wants to do some work on
> >> that.
> >
> > It's not a PEP. It will never be approved because there is no-one to
> > approve it :-).
>
> Sure, but it is a pull-request, it hasn't been merged - so I assume
> that someone is expecting to make or receive more feedback on it.
>
> > The only reason for writing it as a spec is to
> > potentially help coordinate with others who want to get in on making
> > these kinds of packages themselves, and the main motivator for that
> > will be if one of us starts doing it and proves it works...
>
> If I had to guess, I'd guess that you are saying Yes to "no bad
> consequences" (above)?  Would you mind adding something about that in
> the text to make it clear?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matthew
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20170729/bcef743d/attachment.html>


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list