[Numpy-discussion] Where to discuss NEPs (was: Re: new NEP: np.AbstractArray and np.asabstractarray)

[Charles R Harris]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:26 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 7:06 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk
>> <m.h.vankerkwijk at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Nathaniel,
>> >
>> > Overall, hugely in favour!  For detailed comments, it would be good to
>> > have a link to a PR; could you put that up?
>>
>> Well, there's a PR here: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/10706
>>
>> But, this raises a question :-). (One which also came up here:
>> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/10704#issuecomment-371684170)
>>
>> There are sensible two workflows we could use (or at least, two that I
>> can think of):
>>
>> 1. We merge updates to the NEPs as we go, so that whatever's in the
>> repo is the current draft. Anyone can go to the NEP webpage at
>> http://numpy.org/neps (WIP, see #10702) to see the latest version of
>> all NEPs, whether accepted, rejected, or in progress. Discussion
>> happens on the mailing list, and line-by-line feedback can be done by
>> quote-replying and commenting on individual lines. From time to time,
>> the NEP author takes all the accumulated feedback, updates the
>> document, and makes a new post to the list to let people know about
>> the updated version.
>>
>> This is how python-dev handles PEPs.
>>
>> 2. We use Github itself to manage the review. The repo only contains
>> "accepted" NEPs; draft NEPs are represented by open PRs, and rejected
>> NEPs are represented by PRs that were closed-without-merging.
>> Discussion uses Github's commenting/review tools, and happens in the
>> PR itself.
>>
>> This is roughly how Rust handles their RFC process, for example:
>> https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs
>>
>> Trying to do some hybrid version of these seems like it would be
>> pretty painful, so we should pick one.
>>
>> Given that historically we've tried to use the mailing list for
>> substantive features/planning discussions, and that our NEP process
>> has been much closer to workflow 1 than workflow 2 (e.g., there are
>> already a bunch of old NEPs already in the repo that are effectively
>> rejected/withdrawn), I think we should maybe continue that way, and
>> keep discussions here?
>>
>> So my suggestion is discussion should happen on the list, and NEP
>> updates should be merged promptly, or just self-merged. Sound good?
>
>
> Agreed that overall (1) is better than (2), rejected NEPs should be
> visible. However there's no need for super-quick self-merge, and I think it
> would be counter-productive.
>
> Instead, just send a PR, leave it open for some discussion, and update for
> detailed comments (as well as long in-depth discussions that only a couple
> of people care about) in the Github UI and major ones on the list. Once
> it's stabilized a bit, then merge with status "Draft" and update once in a
> while. I think this is also much more in like with what python-dev does, I
> have seen substantial discussion on Github and have not seen quick
> self-merges.
>
>
I have a slight preference for managing the discussion on Github. Note that
I added a `component: NEP` label and that discussion can take place on
merged/closed PRs, the index could also contain links to proposed NEP PRs.
If we just left PR open until acceptance/rejection the label would allow
the proposed NEPs to be easily found, especially if we include the NEP
number in the title, something like `NEP-10111: ` .

Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20180309/a092f8b8/attachment.html>