[SciPy-dev] a modest proposal for technology previews
Mon Nov 3 22:59:03 CST 2008
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 22:43, Travis E. Oliphant <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Jarrod Millman wrote:
>> I have been thinking about how to best get useful, widely-needed,
>> high-quality code with a good, stable API into scipy without creating
>> an unnecessary burden on developers or early adopters. Unfortunately,
>> I don't have time to fully flesh out what I have been thinking; but I
>> went ahead and started writing a SEP:
>> Please note that I don't intend this to replace scikits or other
>> staging grounds. I imagine that a project could easily start as a
>> scikit and mature there. Then a number of developer decide that it
>> belongs in scipy proper. Rather than just working in a branch until
>> the code is ready for release to the world. This mechanism would
>> allow any additional incubator for code maturation and development.
>> I would love to hear everyone's initial thoughts, suggestions, and
>> ideas. I will try and incorporate these comments into the SEP and
>> then we can discuss whether we should accept, reject, or defer the
>> SEP. I have been kicking the idea around a bit with Fernando, Chris,
>> Stefan, and others; so I can't claim the idea is mine. I am just
>> trying to write it up. If anyone once to help out, the SEP is checked
>> into the scipy trunk.
> Hi Jarrod,
> I think it is useful to have a pattern people can follow for getting new
> code into SciPy in a way that produces stable APIs.
> Right now, though, I don't see how scipy.preview is preferrable to
> another staging ground like, say, scikits.forscipy. In fact, I see how
> it might be a bad thing as it basically brings back the sandbox under a
> different name (although one could argue it's a sandbox that actually
> gets distributed).
And there was a reason that the sandbox wasn't distributed in
binaries. The developing code might impose extra build requirements
onto scipy-as-a-whole before we even agree that we want to include it.
It might even break the build at times. We should have a standard path
for new package- or module-sized stuff to be added, but I would prefer
that it be outside of scipy for this reason.
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as
though it had an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
More information about the Scipy-dev