[Numpy-discussion] Removing masked arrays for 1.7? (Was 1.7 blockers)

Travis Oliphant travis@continuum...
Mon Apr 16 22:16:17 CDT 2012


Ralf, 

I wouldn't change your plans just yet for NumPy 1.7.   With Mark available full time for the next few weeks, I think we will be able to make rapid progress on whatever is decided -- in fact if people are available to help but just need resources let me know off list.  

I just want to make sure that the process for making significant changes to NumPy does not dis-enfranchise any voice.   Like bug-reports, and feature-requests, complaints are food to a project, just like usage is oxygen.     In my view, we should take any concern that is raised from the perspective of NumPy is "guilty until proven innocent."  This takes some intentional effort.   I have found that because of how much work it takes to design and implement software, my natural perspective is to be defensive, but I have always appreciated the outcome when all view-points are considered seriously and addressed respectfully.  

Best regards,

-Travis

 


On Apr 16, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Fernando Perez <fperez.net@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Ralf Gommers
> <ralf.gommers@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > That's the first time I've heard this. Until now, we have talked a lot about
> > adding bitmasks and API changes, not about complete removal. My assumption
> > was that the experimental label was enough. From Nathaniel's reaction I
> > gathered the same. It looks like too many conversations on this topic are
> > happening off-list.
> 
> My impression was that Travis was just suggesting that as an option
> here for discussion, not presenting it as something discussed
> elsewhere.  
> 
> From "I have heard from a few people that they are not excited ...." I deduce it was discussed to some extent.
> 
> I read Travis' email precisely as restarting the
> discussion for consideration of the issues in full public view
> 
> It wasn't restating anything, it's completely opposite to the part that I thought we did reach consensus on (*not* backing out changes). I stated as much when first discussing a 1.7.0 in December, http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.numeric.general/47022/focus=47027, with no one disagreeing.
> 
> It's perfectly fine to reconsider any previous decisions/discussions of course. 
> 
> However, I do now draw the conclusion that it's best to wait for this issue to be resolved before considering a new release. I had been working on closing tickets and cleaning up loose ends for 1.7.0, and pinging others to do the same. I guess I'll stop doing that for now, until the renewed NA debate has been settled.
> 
> If there are bug fixes that are important (like the Debian segfaults with Python debug builds), we can do a 1.6.2 release.
> 
> Ralf
> 
> (+
> calls/skype open to anyone interested for bandwidth purposes), so in
> this case I don't think there's any background off-list to worry
> about.  At least that's how I read it...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> f
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20120416/53db6e67/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list