[Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview
Thu Mar 1 04:30:18 CST 2012
+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 Oliphant
> (on a mobile)
> On Feb 29, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Matthew Brett
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 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?
> > Best,
> > Matthew
> > _______________________________________________
> > NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
More information about the NumPy-Discussion