[SciPy-dev] The future of SciPy and its development infrastructure

Charles R Harris charlesr.harris@gmail....
Mon Feb 23 10:29:18 CST 2009

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Stéfan van der Walt <stefan@sun.ac.za>wrote:

> *[If you only have 30 seconds to read this email, read the **bold text
> only]*
> *Dear* SciPy *developer*s
> The past while has seen a rocky ride with the SciPy servers, but yesterday
> Peter Wang announced that he is attending to the situation.  This, then,
> seems like the perfect time to *stand back and take a look at our
> infrastructure*, and whether we should continue with the current setup.
> To put this conversation into context, we have to face the facts: SciPy has
> a large user community relative to the number of developers.  A big library
> of code, used by many scientists, is supported by a small handful of people
> all over the world.  *We cannot afford* *a high barrier to contribution*,
> and we have to lower the effort it takes for a developer to merge
> contributed code.
> *I'd like to propose two changes* to the status quo:
> 1. *Change to a distributed revision control system*, encouraging more
> open collaboration.
> 2. *Determine guidelines for code acceptance*, in terms of unit tests,
> documentation and peer review.
> Allow me to motivate these changes, and then suggest practical approaches
> for their implementation:
> Subversion allows only a selected group of developers to change the SciPy
> source code.  This does not encourage a culture of meritocracy, but worse,
> has practical implications, in that users cannot merge their own patches.  I
> won't discuss the advantages of distributed revision control here, but note
> that it shifts responsibility from the current core developers to
> contributers; *that benefits us all!*
> This ties in with my second point: code review.  The current developers
> have access to SVN because they are experienced programmers with knowledge
> of SciPy's scientific domains of application.  We are unable to employ this
> scarce resource fully, because it simply takes too long to merge a patch
> from Trac, review it, *bring it up to scratch*, and commit it.  *We have
> to put a system in place which allows contributers to take responsibility
> for their own patches, and for core developers to guide and advise during
> this process.*  As it is, we have many patches waiting on Trac for up to a
> year or more without any feedback; that is not acceptable.
> My view on testing is simple: *untested code is probably broken code* (and
> I can show examples from the past year's commit logs to corroborate this
> statement).  *As for documentation, we cannot afford to be without it.
> *
> Implementation:
> Enthought generously hosts SciPy, and I hope they will continue doing so.
> New software will need to be installed on the server, but we have many hands
> willing to tackle that task: David Cournapeau and myself included.  Before
> deploying to scipy.org, *we will configure a *different* server as a proof
> of concept.*
> 1) *Distributed revision control system: David Cournapeau and myself have
> been test driving Git [1] on SciPy and NumPy for a while.  It is fast, well
> supported, has great branch support, and is simple to use for the average
> contributor, while allowing powerful patch-carving for the more adventurous.
> *

I really like Git, but... the last time I looked windows support wasn't up
to snuff. Does anyone have more recent feedback on the windows situation?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://projects.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20090223/ba104a74/attachment.html 

More information about the Scipy-dev mailing list