[SciPy-dev] [scikits] openopt SVN instable for the moment
Wed Apr 9 08:15:30 CDT 2008
> > Yes, I would like to use this, but for several _months_, you did
> > nothing in that matter.
> You should just inform that something IS NOT WORKING AT ALL, while you
> had said that something works in other way than you desire only.
I was not the only one to tell you that your system was broken. Wat I coded
WAS NOT ACCESSSIBLE AT ALL, as you said you would do. I tried it several
times, and when I saw that you didn't do the changes you said you
would do (09/12/2007),
I did them myself, and this time correctly.
You just told us that we had to wait for you to have financial support to do
so. I agree that I should have been less careless.
> Breaking my own code in the process. I didn't say a thing because you
> > were so busy.
> Ok, that means that anyone could commit whatever he want and say "I
> implemented my own changes to svn and I haven't informed you, because
> you are too busy!"
No, but I'm a maintainer of this package as you are. You broke the import of
a part of the scikit, and you didn't bother to fix it, even if you said you
would do so.
> Perhaps then you should start listening to what I'm saying for several
> > months ?
> there are lots of people saying me different things what OO should look
> like. I CAN"T satisfy all those opinions because they are just
> CONTRADICTORY, and because I have my own point of view what OO should be.
Well, as I have recalled you, we are both maintainers of this package, and
this is not what OO should look like. This is how OO must look like : a
clean and correct package that does not mess with people's installation.
> They don't do anything with OO code. Please read what I'm saying.
> > They will add by themselves in the registry (not modifying openopt
> > code) the name of their wrapper. NOTHING ELSE.
> Any people could connect their solver without any regardless to your
> changes done. There were no needs of creating any registry, anyone could
> just put his _oo.py file into /solvers folder, and use his solver, and
> submit his solver(s) (_oo.py files) to openopt svn.
Not everyone can do this. Not everyone wants to do this (because they
installed openopt in their /usr/lin folder for instance). Give them an
efficient way of contributing to the package. BTW, this is not something I
did for fun, it was the only solution available to fix OO's design.
> I'm just worried about code I promised several people to give to the
> > community.
> Ok, suppose I'll promise to my dept to change "lil_matrix" to "sparse",
> so it means i can commit my changes w/o asking permission of Natan? Just
> because I (+, optionally, "some people", or even "most of people")
> consider these changes to be good?
No, because you are breaking the API. I did not break your API.
> And now, with my fixes, everybody is happy,
> I'm not, and it's already enough for your statement to be 100% False
You are not happy because you didn't want anyone to provide the necessary
fixes to your design. Happy means that OO works the way it does before my
fixes. Beides you blame me for mistakes you have made.
I will stop answering you now, because this is useless. I'm also a
maintainer of this package and I did not break anything in OO. I only
refactored some code that you did not want to refactor for some obscure
reason (so that I do not want to contribute more to the package perhaps ?).
Now, a major flaw is gone and there are no issue with sys.path anymore.
French PhD student
Website : http://matthieu-brucher.developpez.com/
Blogs : http://matt.eifelle.com and http://blog.developpez.com/?blog=92
LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthieubrucher
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Scipy-dev