[SciPy-User] Pylab - standard packages

josef.pktd@gmai... josef.pktd@gmai...
Sun Sep 23 16:04:50 CDT 2012


On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Thomas Kluyver <takowl@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23 September 2012 20:42, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Then we should talk to the EPD folk about whether that can be fixed.
>>
>> Certainly. But if they disagree (it would be a big expansion, and they
>> offer a more complete commercial version), we needn't completely
>> revise the standard to accomodate that.
>
> Right, but we should figure that out based on conversation and
> figuring out the exact trade-offs involved. It might be worth cutting
> back the spec slightly, if that turned out to be the difference
> between a useful spec and wishful thinking. Especially if they had a
> good reason for whatever came up, like Python(x,y) does. You wrote we
> "shouldn't relax the standard"; I'm saying we should reserve our
> judgement for now. I doubt we'll *need* to relax the standard anyway,
> but if you want people to feel involved in something you have to make
> clear that their input matters, not rule things out up front.
>
>>> And then in the next sentence I also mentioned that there's no value
>>> in telling people to do things that they won't do...?
>>
>> I hope that including a newer version of IPython is something that
>> Python(x,y) *will* do. This is the intermediate point you were
>> describing: not something that everyone already has done, but
>> something that we can reasonably expect people to do.
>
> I think this is a misunderstanding. The intermediate point I was
> talking about was the one where they change what they do *because* of
> discussions/a spec/etc. That's what I was addressing when I wrote:
>
> | the only reason that I know for why the notebook wouldn't
> | be supported by any pylab-relevant distro is the technical
> | incompatibility between new ipythons and spyder. I assume that
> | notebooks will be supported by Python(x,y) iff that is fixed. This
> | seems like a low impact area for pylab to me, because I don't see how
> | putting something in a spec will make any difference. The way to make
> | an impact here is to go fix that code.
>
> Actually if anything it looks like the opposite -- right now it's you
> and Fernando et al who are actively interested in IPython's role in
> the spec, not the spyder folks. So keeping the notebook out of the
> spec for now will motivate you guys to go get that code fixed :-).
>
> I'm sort of joking, but only sort of...
>
>> I'm taking a longer term view: Pylab needn't be a description of the
>> userbase on the day it launches. Many users don't use a Python
>> distribution, so there's almost no minimum set of packages you can
>> assume people have installed today. But with plenty of communication
>> and elbow grease, I hope that in, say, 6 months, the idea will have
>> enough traction with users and distributions that you can write code
>> and say "runs on Pylab 2.0", and users will either have it or be able
>> to get it easily.
>>
>> We're certainly not insisting that distributions implement the spec at
>> once, but we're giving them a (fairly reasonable, I think) set of
>> targets to work towards. Some distributions already meet it, others
>> may need to update a package or two.
>
> The way you get traction is by getting the relevant people involved in
> the decision-making, and making it as useful as possible on day one.
> We don't want to "give them targets", we want to work *with* them on
> common goals. There's no reason we can't start with a reality-based
> spec and then try to improve it. The nice thing is that the way you
> improve a reality-based spec is to improve reality, so even though the
> spec itself is just a webpage somewhere, it encourages changes that
> matter.
>
> What do you think of this suggestion from above?: "start a pylab list,
> move the discussion there, and make sure that the various stakeholders
> are specifically invited"?

My impression is that scipy-user is still the wider audience for the
general discussion, before you go off to another mailing list. (and
split the discussion 3-way)

Josef

>
> -n
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-User mailing list
> SciPy-User@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user


More information about the SciPy-User mailing list