[Numpy-discussion] merging datetime progress
Wed Jun 8 13:04:03 CDT 2011
On 06/08/2011 10:26 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Fernando Perez <fperez.net
> <http://fperez.net>@gmail.com <http://gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Mark Wiebe <firstname.lastname@example.org
> <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
> > I went ahead and did the merge today as I said I wanted to, that
> > request is some further development for someone to code-review
> if they have
> > time.
> I'm curious as to why there was a need to push ahead with the merge
> right away, without giving the original pull request more time for
> feedback? If I'm not mistaken, the big merge was this PR:
> and it was just opened a few days ago, containing a massive amount of
> work, and so far had only received some feedback from charris,
> explicitly requesting a little more breakdown to make digesting it
> This is all true, I'll try to explain what my thought process was in
> doing the merge. This set of changes basically takes the codebase from
> a basically unusable datetime to a good starting point for all the
> design discussions that we've been having on the mailing list. I
> opened the pull request with about half of the changes that were there
> to try and get some feedback, and kept developing on a datetime-fixes2
> branch. When I reached the point that I later merged in, nobody had
> responded so I added the new commits to the same pull request.
> Perhaps I should have more patience with git history-editing and
> revisiting the development history, but I've basically come to the
> conclusion that it's not worth the effort except on relatively minor
> things, so I want to rather focus on the code and its design instead
> of the particular series of commits that produced it. In doing those
> commits, I had to repeatedly double back and implement new missing
> functionality before returning to and finishing up what I was working on.
> For the development I'm doing now, which is related to the multitude
> of design discussions, I'm splitting it up into more topical branches
> partially because the work I merged provides a solid foundation for
> doing so, and because these are things diverging from the NEP instead
> of being things I perceived as having already had a discussion process
> during the NEP formation.
> I tried to see if github would let me do a "dependent" pull request,
> but it just included the commits from the branch my later development
> was sitting on, and that's probably the main reason I wanted to do a
> post-commit style review for this set of changes instead of
> pre-commit. I wrote this email to try and communicate my transition
> from pre-commit to post-commit review, but I think my wording about
> this probably wasn't clear.
> I realize that I'm not really an active numpy contributor in any
> significant way, and I see that you've put a ton of work into this,
> including a very detailed and impressive discussion on the list on
> with multiple people. So my opinion is just that of a user, not
> really a core numpy developer.
> I think your opinion is much more than that, particularly since you're
> actively working on closely related projects using the same community
> But it seems to me that part of having numpy be a better
> community-driven project is precisely achieved by having the patience
> to allow others to provide feedback and testing, even if they aren't
> 100% experts. And one thing that github really shines at, is making
> the review/feedback process about as painless as possible (I actually
> find it kind of fun).
> Definitely true (except for not having dependent pull requests, unless
> my search was too shallow...). That pull request also has nothing to
> do with the discussion we're currently having, it's more of a
> prerequisite, so anyone who is following the discussion and wants to
> dig in and review the code I'm doing related to that discussion will
> be lost in a swamp. By merging this prerequisite, and introducing
> separated, cleaner pull requests on that base that are directly from
> issues being discussed, this kind of community collaboration is much
> more likely to happen. I've simply done a bad job of communicating
> this, and as I'm doing the things we're discussing I'll try and tie
> these different elements better to encourage the ideals you're describing.
> For example, with this merge, numpy HEAD right now won't even compile
> on x86_64, something that would easily have been caught with a bit
> more review, especially since it's so easy to test (even I can do
> that). It's been a long time since we had a situation where numpy
> didn't cleanly at least build from HEAD, so if nothing else, it's a
> (small) sign that this particular merge could have used a few more
> I apologize for that, I've grown accustomed to having little to no
> review to my pull requests, except from Chuck whose time and effort
> I've greatly appreciated, and has significantly improved the
> contributions I've made. The only active C-level NumPy development
> currently appears to be what I'm doing, and the great
> clean-up/extension proposals that Chuck has emailed about. I would
> like it if the buildbot system worked better to let me automatically
> trigger some build/tests on a variety of platforms before merging a
> branch, but it is as it is.
> I realize that it's sometimes frustrating to have a lot of code
> sitting in review, and I know that certain efforts are large and
> self-contained enough that it's impractical to expect a detailed
> line-by-line review. We've had a few such monster branches in ipython
> in the past, but at least in those cases we've always tried to ensure
> several core people (over skype if needed) have a chance to go over
> the entire big picture, discuss the main details with the author so
> they can know what to focus on from the large merge, and run the tests
> in as many scenarios as is realistic. And so far we haven't really
> had any problems with this approach, even if it does require a little
> more patience in seeing that (often very high quality) work make it to
> the mainline.
> That approach sounds great, and NumPy needs more active core developers!
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org <mailto:NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org>
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
I am sorry but github pull requests do not appear to be sent to the
numpy dev list. So you are not going to get many people to respond to
that type of 'closed' request. Further any discussion for things that
get merged into the master really should be on the list especially as
many people do extensive testing.
Bug fixes probably do not need further notification but feature
additions or API/ABI changes should have wider notification. So an email
to the list would be greatly appreciated so that interested people can
track the request and any discussions there. Then, depending on the
nature of the request, a second email that notifies that the request
will be merged.
I can understand Windows failures because not that many people build
under Windows but build failures under Linux are rather hard to
understand. If you do not test Python 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 3.1 and 3.2
with the supported operating systems (mainly 32-bit and 64-bit Linux,
Mac and Windows) then you must let those people who can and give them
time to build and test it. That is really true when you acknowledged
that you broke one of the 'one of the datetime API functions'.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion