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

Stéfan van der Walt stefan@sun.ac...
Mon Feb 23 14:05:56 CST 2009

Hi Matthew

2009/2/23 Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com>:
> 2) Yes.  Please.  That would really help.  How do we think we should
> best get there?  If we don't switch to DVCS immediately?

It won't require a revolution (hopefully), just consensus amongst developers.

I view anyone with SVN access as a gatekeeper.  Gatekeepers should
agree to a code of conduct, by which they are held.

1. No code enters SciPy unless it had two pairs of eyes on it:
reviewer and committer, reviewer and reviewer, reviewer and release
manager, etc.  All tickets ready for merging are marked in Trac for
2. No code enters SciPy unless it is fully documented.
3. No code enters SciPy unless it is fully tested (this holds for both
bug-fixes and enhancements)

It sounds tough, but it guarantees fewer bugs and a higher quality
code base.  I think it would be *less* intimidating for new
contributers if they knew that everybody's code got reviewed, not just
theirs, and that we'd like to work with them to improve their code to
the point where it can be included.


More information about the Scipy-dev mailing list