[SciPy-dev] Technology Previews and Sphinx Docstring Annotations

David Cournapeau cournape@gmail....
Tue Nov 4 19:25:28 CST 2008


On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Anne Archibald
<aarchiba@physics.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> 2008/11/4 Travis E. Oliphant <oliphant@enthought.com>:
>> Jarrod Millman wrote:
>>> I absolutely agree with the ideas presented about scikits and look
>>> forward to seeing the numerous scikits improvements.  I feel that I
>>> have gotten into a discussion where the counter argument to what I am
>>> proposing is something I strongly support.  I also feel that the
>>> counterargument doesn't directly address my concern; but it may be
>>> that I am simply perceiving a problem that no one else believes
>>> exists.
>>>
>> Let me make my point again.   I'm arguing that instead of scipy.preview,
>> let's just make a *single* scikit called scikit.preview or
>> scikit.forscipy or scikit.future_scipy or whatever.    This will create
>> some incentive to make scikits easier to install generally as we want to
>> get the future_scipy out there being used.
>>
>> I'm very interested, though, to hear what developers of modules that
>> they would like to see in SciPy but have not made it there yet, think.
>>
>> I'm very interested in the question of how do we make it easier to
>> contribute to SciPy.
>
> As a developer who has written the module that is sparking this
> discussion, if the route to inclusion in scipy were "make a scikit,
> maintain and distribute it until you get enough user feedback to judge
> whether the API is optimal, then move it fully-formed into scipy" my
> code would simply gather dust and never be included. I don't have the
> time and energy to maintain a scikit.

That's what I don't understand: there is almost no difference between
maintaing a scikit and a scipy submodule. In both case you have to
write some setup.py + the module itself. To get the sources, it is
scikit vs scipy svn. Both Damian and you made this case, so I would
like to understand what's so different from your POV, because I just
don't get it ATM. Maybe there are some confusion on how a scikit can
be made and distributer (the documentation could certainly be
improved).

Having a scikit also means that if you are willing to do it, you can
easily build binaries installers, source distributions *in one
command*. You  can't do that with scipy, which won't change for the
foreseable future. And you don't need to care about breaking scipy.

>
> The question is really, how do we take tested, apparently
> production-ready code, and get it out there so users can get at it?
> The current approach is "put it in scipy and live with the API".

Not exactly: the "live with the API" case has been made for features
which have been in scipy for years, that many people depend on.

Also, I can't help noticing than in both Damian and your case, what
happened is not what scipy.preview is about, but to put code directly
in scipy. And I also think the process of scipy.preview does not scale
much. It worked in your case, but will it work if many people want to
put code in scipy ?


More information about the Scipy-dev mailing list