[SciPy-dev] [scikits] openopt SVN instable for the moment

dmitrey dmitrey.kroshko@scipy....
Wed Apr 9 07:51:11 CDT 2008

Matthieu Brucher wrote:
>     > That's what packages are made for. When the package is in a stable
>     > state, one can think about modifying files so that the module is
>     > enhanced. This fix waited far too long. And besides, I think
>     that the
>     > code I provided in the scikit should be available for people who
>     want
>     > it (generic framework that you hid in the solvers).
>     In the letter from 09/12/2007 I had proposed you to install your
>     optimizers to same path OpenOpt is installed, i.e. using from
>     scikits.genericopt import ...
>     You had answered: "Do what you think is the best, I don't mind using
>     from openopt... import optimizers"
> Yes, I would like to use this, but for several _months_, you did 
> nothing in that matter.
You should just inform that something IS NOT WORKING AT ALL, while you 
had said that something works in other way than you desire only.

>     > I once started a similar fix and you rolled back everything.
>     I had got to know about those changes when Nils Wagner had informed me
>     that latest OO from subversion just don't work.
> Breaking my own code in the process. I didn't say a thing because you 
> were so busy.
Ok, that means that anyone could commit whatever he want and say "I 
implemented my own changes to svn and I haven't informed you, because 
you are too busy!"
>     > I'm sorry, but you are not the only one that spent days, weeks, to
>     > create the package. I spent hours trying to do something you
>     said you
>     > would do months ago (this fix). But sometimes, decisions have to be
>     > made, because other code depend on it. I already waited too long to
>     > fix this design (this was one of the reasons I did not add new stuff
>     > to the package, as I had no way of advertizing it to the outside
>     world).
>     Do you realize what any project will look like if anyone will
>     implement
>     his own changes wrt his own needs only, w/o even informing others?
> Perhaps then you should start listening to what I'm saying for several 
> months ?
there are lots of people saying me different things what OO should look 
like. I CAN"T satisfy all those opinions because they are just 
CONTRADICTORY, and because I have my own point of view what OO should be.
>     > so people who want to use the last stable realease can do so. And
>     > people who want to use the full power of the package can do so now.
>     I still don't think some days of my not-committing give rights to
>     those
>     abstract people you have mentioned to do whatever they want with
>     OO code.
> They don't do anything with OO code. Please read what I'm saying.
> They will add by themselves in the registry (not modifying openopt 
> code) the name of their wrapper. NOTHING ELSE.
Any people could connect their solver without any regardless to your 
changes done. There were no needs of creating any registry, anyone could 
just put his _oo.py file into /solvers folder, and use his solver, and 
submit his solver(s) (_oo.py files) to openopt svn.
>     And after those several months you can't wait these 2 days before GSoC
>     results?
> I don't know about the deadlines. 
But at least you know (particularly, from scipy mail lists) how much 
GSoC means to me and that results have to be known soon.
> I'm just worried about code I promised several people to give to the 
> community.
Ok, suppose I'll promise to my dept to change "lil_matrix" to "sparse", 
so it means i can commit my changes w/o asking permission of Natan? Just 
because I (+, optionally, "some people", or even "most of people") 
consider these changes to be good?

> And now, with my fixes, everybody is happy, 
I'm not, and it's already enough for your statement to be 100% False

More information about the Scipy-dev mailing list