[Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview
Wed Feb 29 21:02:01 CST 2012
I Would like to hear the opinions of others on that point, but yes, I think that is an appropriate procedure.
(on a mobile)
On Feb 29, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Matthew Brett <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Travis Oliphant <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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:
> 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?
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
More information about the NumPy-Discussion