[Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Matthew Brett matthew.brett@gmail....
Wed Feb 29 12:54:03 CST 2012


Hi,

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Travis Oliphant <travis@continuum.io> wrote:
> We already use the NEP process for such decisions.   This discussion came from simply from the *idea* of writing such a NEP.
>
> Nothing has been decided.  Only opinions have been shared that might influence the NEP.  This is all pretty premature, though ---  migration to C++ features on a trial branch is some months away were it to happen.

Fernando can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was asking a
governance question.   That is: would you (as BDF$N) consider the
following guideline:

"As a condition for accepting significant changes to Numpy, for each
significant change, there will be a NEP.  The NEP shall follow the
same model as the Python PEPs - that is - there will be a summary of
the changes, the issues arising, the for / against opinions and
alternatives offered.  There will usually be a draft implementation.
The NEP will contain the resolution of the discussion as it relates to
the code"

For example, the masked array NEP, although very substantial, contains
little discussion of the controversy arising, or the intended
resolution of the controversy:

https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/3f685a1a990f7b6e5149c80b52436fb4207e49f5/doc/neps/missing-data.rst

I mean, although it is useful, it is not in the form of a PEP, as
Fernando has described it.

Would you accept extending the guidelines to the NEP format?

Best,

Matthew


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list