[Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

[Richard Hattersley]

+1 on the NEP guideline

As part of a team building a scientific analysis library, I'm
attempting to understand the current state of NumPy development and
its likely future (with a view to contributing if appropriate). The
proposed NEP process would make that a whole lot easier. And if
nothing else, it would reduce the chance of me posting questions about
topics that had already been discussed/decided!

Without the process the NEPs become another potential source of
confusion and mixed messages.


On 1 March 2012 03:02, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> I Would like to hear the opinions of others on that point,

> but yes,  I think that is an appropriate procedure.

>

> Travis

>

> --

> Travis Oliphant

> (on a mobile)

> 512-826-7480

>

>

> On Feb 29, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Matthew Brett

> <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> > 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/3f685a1a990f7b6e5149c80b52

> 436fb4207e49f5/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

> > _______________________________________________

> > 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

>

>

>