[Numpy-discussion] NA masks in the next numpy release?

Charles R Harris charlesr.harris@gmail....
Sun Oct 23 14:53:56 CDT 2011

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I was surprised today to notice that Mark's NA mask support appears to
> > have been merged into numpy master and is described in the draft
> > release notes[1]. My surprise is because merging it to mainline
> > without any discussion on the list seems to contradict what what
> > Travis wrote in July, that it was being developed as an experiment and
> > explicitly *not* intended to be merged without further discussion:
> >
> > "Basically, because there is not consensus and in fact a strong and
> > reasonable opposition to specific points, Mark's NEP as proposed
> > cannot be accepted in its entirety right now. However,  I believe an
> > implementation of his NEP is useful and will be instructive in
> > resolving the issues and so I have instructed him to spend Enthought
> > time on the implementation. Any changes that need to be made to the
> > API before it is accepted into a released form of NumPy can still be
> > made even after most of the implementation is completed as far as I
> > understand it."[2]
> >
> > Can anyone explain what the plan is here? Is the idea to continue the
> > discussion and rework the API while it is in master, delaying the next
> > release for as long as it takes to achieve consensus? Or is there some
> > mysterious git thing going on where "master" is actually an
> > experimental branch and the real mainline development is happening
> > somewhere else? Or something else I'm not thinking of? Please help me
> > understand.
> I don't know about you, but watching the development from a distance
> it became increasingly clear to me that this would happen.  I"m sure
> you've had the experience as I have, of mixing several desirable
> changes into the same set of commits, and it's hard work to avoid
> this.  I imagine this is what happened with Mark's MA changes.
> The result is actually an extension of the problems of the original
> discussion, which is a feeling that we the community do not have a say
> in the development.
> I think this email might be a plea to the numpy steering group, and to
> Travis in particular, to see if we can use a discussion of this series
> of events to decide on a good way to proceed in future.
Oh come, people had plenty to say, you and Nathaniel in particular.  Mark
pointed to the pull request, anyone who was interested could comment on it,
Benjamin Root did so, for instance. The fact things didn't go the way you
wanted doesn't indicate insufficient discussion. And you are certainly
welcome to put together an alternative and put up a pull request.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20111023/c492beff/attachment.html 

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list