[Numpy-discussion] "import numpy" performance
Tue Jul 10 04:39:30 CDT 2012
On 10 July 2012 09:05, Andrew Dalke <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Scott Sinclair wrote:
>> On 6 July 2012 15:48, Andrew Dalke <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> I followed the instructions at
>>> and added Ticket #2181 (with patch) ...
>> Those instructions need to be updated to reflect the current preferred
>> practice. You'll make code review easier and increase the chances of
>> getting your patch accepted by submitting the patch as a Github pull
>> request instead (see
>> for a how-to). It's not very much extra work.
> Both of those URLs point to related documentation under the same
> root, so I assumed that both are equally valid.
That's a valid assumption.
> I did look at the development_workflow documentation, and am already
> bewildered by the terms 'rebase','fast-foward' etc. It seems to that
> last week I made a mistake because I did a "git pull" on my local copy
> (which is what I do with Mercurial to get the current trunk code)
> instead of:
> git fetch followed by gitrebase, git merge --ff-only or
> git merge --no-ff, depending on what you intend.
> I don't know if I made a "common mistake", and I don't know "what [I]
Fair enough, new terminology is seldom fun. Using git pull wasn't
necessary in your case, neither was git rebase.
> I realize that for someone who plans to be a long term contributor,
> understanding git, github, and the NumPy development model is
> "not very much extra work", but in terms of extra work for me,
> or at least minimizing my level of confusion, I would rather do
> what the documentation suggests and continue with the submitted
By "not very much extra work" I assumed that you'd already done most
of the legwork towards submitting a pull request (Github account,
forking numpy repo, etc..) My mistake, I now retract that statement :)
and submitted your patch in https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/334 as
a peace offering.
More information about the NumPy-Discussion