[Numpy-discussion] NA masks in the next numpy release?
Sun Oct 23 16:28:01 CDT 2011
On Sunday, October 23, 2011, Nathaniel Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Charles R Harris
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Matthew Brett <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> 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
> Ah, this helps answer my initial question -- I can see how you might
> have thought things were more resolved if you thought that we were
> aware of the pull request and chose not to participate. That's a
> reasonable source of confusion.
> But I (and presumably others) were unaware of the pull request,
> because it turns out that actually Mark did *not* point to the pull
> request, at least in email to either me or numpy-discussion. As far as
> I can tell, the first time that pull request has ever been mentioned
> on the list is in Pauli's email today. (I did worry I might have
> missed it, so I just double-checked the archives for August 18-August
> 27, which is the time period the pull request was open, and couldn't
> find anything there.)
> (Also, for the record, I'd ask that next time you want to make sure
> that there has been sufficient discussion on a controversial feature
> that has "strong and reasonable opposition", you make more of an
> effort to make sure that the relevant stakeholders are aware...?)
>> 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.
> In the interests of not turning this into a game of procedural
> brinksmanship, can we agree that the point of pull requests and such
> is to make sure that code which ends up in numpy releases generally
> matches what the community wants? Obviously the community has not
> reached a consensus on this code and API, so I'll prepare a pull
> request to temporarily revert the change, and we can work from there.
> -- Nathaniel
The discussion started on mark's branches, which was referred to several
times in emails (that's how I started). When it reached a particular level
of maturity, a pull request was made and additional work went into it. The
initial discussion happened for quite a while.
Plus, my understanding is that it isnt the full Nep, but the core parts (but
I haven't checked in a while).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion