[SciPy-User] Up-to-date SciPy/NumPy docs
Thu Jun 24 03:24:38 CDT 2010
Thanks for clarifying things regarding SciPy/NumPy docs stability.
>From what I understand, I think that the best for Python(x,y) is to
keep distributing the outdated versions of the docs. After all,
essential features are still the same and were already well
Thanks again for your answer.
Long live to SciPy!
> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:02:18 -0700
> From: David Goldsmith <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: [SciPy-User] Up-to-date SciPy/NumPy docs
> To: SciPy Users List <email@example.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> The problem is, the doc is *not* stable: the NumPy doc is quasi-stable
> (there remain 59 "documents" - docstrings, user guide pages, reference
> pages, and tutorial pages - in "Being written" status, and 81 in "Needs
> editing" status, 19 of which are new since the end of April, i.e., NumPy
> continues to be moving target), and the SciPy doc is in a highly
> "non-uniform" state, both with respect to quantity and quality, which is
> putting it euphemistically IMHO: frankly, if you distribute the SciPy doc
> now as it is, you're doing us a better service by telling people that it
> *isn't* stable, because saying it *is* in its present state, well, that's
> what would make us look unprofessional (again, IMO). More to the point, the
> SciPy doc is presently the focus of an ostensibly community-wide effort to
> improve it, so, again ostensibly, presently it is anything but "stable."
> There's a lot of work to be done, but, under the philosophy that some doc is
> better than no doc at all, the present, dynamic state hasn't stopped us from
> releasing it "as is" in the past; indeed, in the past, I believe this has
> been the main source of doc improvement: a user posts a doc deficiency to
> the list, and that's when it's been taken care of - the "itch-scratching"
> approach. I *think* we all wish that the doc could be completed yesterday,
> but the fact of the matter is, until the community steps up and decides that
> writing good, clear and complete doc for the stuff that's already there is
> *at least* as important as increasing the code base, the state of the doc
> will forever be "unstable."
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Pierre Raybaut <firstname.lastname@example.org>wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I was planning to update Python(x,y) NumPy and SciPy plugins up to
>> (resp.) v1.4.1 and v0.7.2 for a long time now but I was waiting for
>> the documentation to be updated as well. But when I'm going to SciPy
>> documentation website, there are either still outdated versions of
>> NumPy and Scipy documentation available for download.
>> More precisely, I have the choice to download either outdated .chm
>> (the most interesting format for Windows) or .pdf documentations, or
>> "too recent" html versions (drafts).
>> Wouldn't be more logical to propose a stable version of these
>> documentations along with current stable releases?
>> I'm tired to deliver draft versions with Python(x,y), it simply seems
>> In other words, I would really appreciate .chm docs to be updated to
>> the latest stable releases of NumPy and SciPy. I'm sure that all
>> Windows scientific Python users will appreciate as well!
>> SciPy-User mailing list
> Mathematician: noun, someone who disavows certainty when their uncertainty
> set is non-empty, even if that set has measure zero.
> Hope: noun, that delusive spirit which escaped Pandora's jar and, with her
> lies, prevents mankind from committing a general suicide. (As interpreted
> by Robert Graves)
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-user/attachments/20100623/0e5077f6/attachment.html
> SciPy-User mailing list
> End of SciPy-User Digest, Vol 82, Issue 65
More information about the SciPy-User