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

Travis E. Oliphant oliphant@enthought....
Wed Feb 25 10:54:05 CST 2009


josef.pktd@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I think that having someone who feels responsible for the different parts
> of scipy is the main problem. And whatever we do to make this
> easier and that expands the number of active participants will be an
> improvement.
>   
It's a man-power thing again in my mind.    I would love to spend more 
time on SciPy, but have not found the time.
> I'm a huge fan of full test coverage, but writing full verified tests is for me
> a lot of work and I still have a backlog of bugfixes because I haven't
> had time to write sufficient tests.
>
> Also, I think that the commitment to maintain and increase test
> coverage should be sufficient for some cases.
> For example, in stats.mstats Pierre rewrote and added statistics
> functions for masked arrays, the test coverage is good, but there
> are still quite a few functions not covered and still some rough edges,
> but overall it looks in better condition than scipy.stats did. In this case
> I find it useful to have the full set of functions, that Pierre wrote,
> available immediately than adding them piecemeal as he finds time
> to write tests.
>   
Yes.   This is exactly the way I feel.  I'd rather have functionality 
written by someone who cared about it perhaps without full test coverage 
than no functionality because someone can't find time to write tests.
> But for now, I think, I still need to be able toget some bug fixes
> into stats without a large beaurocracy, or with an
> expiration date on any code review.
>   
+1


BTW:

Thanks for all your hard work on stats and optimize, Josef.

-Travis



More information about the Scipy-dev mailing list