[SciPy-User] Pylab - standard packages

Fernando Perez fperez.net@gmail....
Sat Sep 22 13:10:25 CDT 2012


On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you have forwards and backwards compatible the wrong way around.
> Forwards compatible would be that you can open version 4 files, if that's
> introduced in IPython 0.14 or later, in 0.13. In my opinion you need either
> forward compatibility or by default keep saving in version 3 even after you
> have version 4, if you want to make the format a standard.

The format has now two numbers, major and minor.  Right now we're at
3.0. The idea is that small, forward-compatible changes will only
increment the minor number.  It may be that a feature is added that is
only understood for certain functionality in version 3.1, but a 3.0
IPython would be able to read, use and save 3.1 notebooks without any
*data loss*.

Only if there is a change that makes it impossible to really
understand the notebooks themselves by an older version of the code
(say because something in the JSON layout changes) would the major
number be bumped.  That's what happened when we went from v2 to v3.

Now, I don't know if I'm misunderstanding your comment above that we
have to keep saving in v3 forever if we want the notebook in the spec.
If you really mean that, then we absolutely *don't* want ipython in
the spec, ever.  Because we can't commit to never in the future
evolving the format. But by that token, then we'd say that the api for
numpy, or matplotlib, or scipy, can never ever change in a
backwards-incompatible manner if they are to go into the spec.  So
will we not put numpy in the spec because in-place operations in the
current 1.7 betas break code that was valid up until now?

So if putting anything in the spec means it can never change, then by
all means let's leave it out.  Because we can't commit to freezing
IPython development forever.

But we have put a lot of thought into trying to ensure that we won't
need format changes for a long time, because we are keenly aware of
how disruptive a file format change is.  And now that there are a ton
of notebooks 'in the wild', we know it would be a real major annoyance
to make such changes nilly-willy.

So we will do everything we can to keep developing, for as long as
possible, on the v3 format.  We will try to encapsulate all new use
cases and functionality into the extensible metadata fields that are
already defined in there.  The course I foresee is that the *user
interface* will evolve to expose and make better use of these
notebooks, so certain fancier features (say a metadata-based slideshow
mode, for example) might not exist in older versions simply because
the code hasn't been written yet.

To be more specific with the slideshow idea (which is in the works):
let's say that we add tags to the metadata that will be interpreted as
slide transitions in a yet-to-be completed slideshow implementation
for IPython 0.14.  IPython current (0.13) wouldn't show the slideshow
because it simply doesn't have the feature.  But it would open a
notebook saved with slideshow metadata without losing any of it, and
it could be worked on, edited, etc, without any danger.

Cheers,

f


More information about the SciPy-User mailing list