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

Matthew Brett matthew.brett@gmail....
Sun Oct 23 15:12:41 CDT 2011


On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 20:58, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Charles R Harris
>> <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I was also guessing that something like this would be the reply to
>> Nathaniel's post.
> But it wasn't. It was a reply to your message.

If you read the message again I think you will see that, although it
is addressed to me, it is referring to Nathaniel's question which was,
'Why was this not discussed as promised'.  My post was 'This was
obviously going to happen and that is a problem, do you all agree and
what can we do about it?'.

>> I think this reply is rude because it implies some sort of sour-grapes
>> from Nathaniel, when he is politely referring back to an explicit
>> reassurance from Travis.
> What Travis assured did happen, just on the pull request (on which
> everyone's input was requested and where most "should this be merged?"
> discussions are *meant* to happen) rather than on the mailing list.

It just isn't reasonable to ask for high-level API discussions on the
pull-request in this situation.  Unless Travis tells me he did mean
that, I can only assume that he didn't and he meant that we would
revisit the high-level mailing list discussions - on the mailing list.



More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list