[SciPy-dev] The future of SciPy and its development infrastructure
Travis E. Oliphant
Thu Feb 26 13:44:22 CST 2009
> Perry Greenfield wrote:
>> 2) While I understand the desire to increase the quality of commits to
>> scipy by putting in a more formal process, like making sure code is
>> reviewed, tests are present, and documentation is provided, I too,
>> like Travis, worry that this may inhibit many useful contributions.
>> Rather than act as a barrier, why not just have some sort of "seal of
>> approval" for things that have gone through that process.
> Lots of projects have -stable and -dev branches. The -stable branch for
> scipy could involve the "seal of approval" with review, doctests, etc.
> The -dev branch could be the unreviewed code. This lets Travis commit
> to something and get his patches out there, but also clearly defines a
> line in the sand between reviewed and unreviewed code. I realize that
> scipy already has something of -dev and -stable branches, based on
> releases. Maybe this idea boils down to: only reviewed code is allowed
> in an official release, but there is a -dev branch with all code
> available as well. As code is reviewed, it is moved into the -stable
> branch and released in the next release.
This may be a good solution for us in the short term, prior to choosing
> In reality, using a DVCS, each developer's copy of the repository then
> becomes a private -dev branch that can be pulled from. Developers get
> to commit and publish unreviewed changes, and someone (the release
> manager) can pull in to -stable the changes that are reviewed. The
> release manager could also pull all changes from developer repositories
> into an official -dev branch if you wanted to have a central clearing
> house for what everyone is working on.
This sounds like a good workflow that solves the concerns I have while
still allowing a stable branch to emerge with well-documented / tested /
It seems like we could do this today --- I like it.
More information about the Scipy-dev