[SciPy-dev] Scipy workflow (and not tools).

Charles R Harris charlesr.harris@gmail....
Tue Feb 24 16:02:34 CST 2009


On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Mike Hansen <mhansen@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Charles R Harris
> <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think there are enough eyes at this point for a strict review
> > policy. How many of the current packages have any maintainer? Who was
> > maintaining the stats package before Josef got involved? How many folks
> > besides Robert could look over the changes usefully? How many folks
> looked
> > over Travis' recent addition to optimize?  Who is working on the
> > interpolation package?
> >
> > I think at this point we would be better off trying to recruit at least
> one
> > person to "own" each package. For new packages that is usually the person
> > who committed it but we also need ownership of older packages. Someone
> with
> > a personal stake in a package is likely to do more for quality assurance
> at
> > this point than any amount of required review.
>
> It doesn't seem your current process is conducive to have a
> "maintainer" for each package.  What is the maintainer supposed to do?
>  Monitor all the relevant SVN commits hoping that some broken,
> untested change doesn't go in behind his or her back?
>
> With a review process, maintainers emerge since code doesn't get
> included if they don't.  You also get a lot more people knowledgeable
> about more areas of the codebase.
>
> I think Stefan's comment should be reiterated:
>
> > Having so little time means that we cannot be cavalier about adding
> > broken code to SciPy.  Like Matthew mentioned, this becomes an immense
> > maintenance burden.
>

Are we adding a lot of broken code? Does the gain offset the pain? I think
we need more folks with commit privileges and interest. In the short term I
would propose the following.

1) Additions get posted on the mailing list for comment before commit. I'll
bet few knew of the additions to optimize.

2) We look for folks with patches in trac and consider giving them commit
privileges to fix things up.

3) We put together a list of needed tests. Then we will see how serious
folks are about writing tests.

Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://projects.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20090224/9c968184/attachment.html 


More information about the Scipy-dev mailing list