[SciPy-Dev] Scipy 1.0 roadmap
Sat Sep 21 18:28:19 CDT 2013
I think it's great to have some rough goal posts set out for 1.0.
Regardless of exactly what 1.0 means, by making a giant todo
list you've made contributing to SciPy much more appealing -
it now feels like there is a targeted effort to tidy the whole
project up, and I for one would like to be a part of it.
My name is James Booth and I'm a Comp Sci PhD student.
I'm part of a team at Imperial College London that is leaning
heavily on Scipy for our research - I'll take a look through the list in
detail and see if I can't help out in some way.
On 22 September 2013 00:19, Pauli Virtanen <email@example.com> wrote:
> 22.09.2013 01:35, Nathaniel Smith kirjoitti:
> > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Ralf Gommers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> - topics like "do we need a roadmap?" or "what does 1.0-ready really
> >> are discussed on this thread.
> > I would be curious what the answers are to these questions :-).
> > This looks like a big list with many good improvements on it, but I'm
> > not sure what makes them "1.0 changes" instead of just "good changes
> > we should do". Does 1.0 mean we can break a lot of stuff at once and
> > get away with it? Does it mean that after that we're not allowed to
> > change things like this ever again so we have to get it right (and
> > maybe keep slipping the schedule until we're certain)? Does it mean
> > no more releases until all the below things happen? Or on the other
> > extreme, does it mean that someone will keep an eye on this list, and
> > at some point maybe in a few years when we notice that all of these
> > things have happened, then the next release gets called "1.0" instead
> > of "0.18" or whatever?
> > I think when you start talking about "1.0" people have very strong
> > conflicting assumptions about what this "obviously" means, so...
> In my mind, "1.0" for Scipy means that we cover a basic set of features
> needed for numerical science, and do it well. A definition via negative
> is: at "1.0" we don't have
> (i) stuff that's obviously crap
> (ii) blank spots at commonly needed functionality
> (iii) awkward usage patterns
> It is of course a subjective matter what this means, but writing the
> known issues down in the roadmap is one way to define it.
> Regarding API deprecations: I think breaking a lot of stuff at "1.0" at
> once is not a good idea, and I don't think that will happen. Rather,
> things progress as we have done so far --- if something is horribly
> awkward, a new API is introduced and the old one is deprecated. We can
> perhaps be slightly more aggressive in the cleaning out crap at "1.0",
> but I don't think there'll be a qualitative difference. This is also for
> practical reasons, as we will not be able to fix everything in one go in
> any case.
> Rather, one day in the distant future, it turns out that the next
> release is in a good enough shape to be called "1.0". The "0.x" roll up
> to that point.
> Pauli Virtanen
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SciPy-Dev