On Mon, Oct 7, 2024, at 06:04, Rohit Goswami wrote: > I second Matti's comments about the validity of endorsing things we don't > implement.
I don't think it is possible to make ecosystem-wide recommendation that will fit each project like a glove. At best, we can try to come together as a community, make sound recommendations, and accept that there will be exceptions depending on circumstances. And those exceptions may well apply to NumPy. E.g., being at the bottom of the stack, the NumPy project may recommend the drop schedules from SPEC0 for other projects, but may implement a different strategy to ensure wider compatibility. > Also, personally I really dislike the keys to castle spec, because I'm > generally against having yearly check in reviews and such. The SPECs are living documents, and are constructed based on input from the community. It would therefore be good to better understand your concern. Is it with the sentence "Review permissions regularly (say, every year) to maintain minimal permissions."? Having written that SPEC, to me that obviously feels like a fairly pragmatic, low-cost recommendation; but perhaps there are better ways to accomplish the same goal. An issue on https://github.com/scientific-python/specs or the thread at https://discuss.scientific-python.org/t/spec-6-keys-to-the-castle/777/2 could be good venues for further discussion. Best regards, Stéfan
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
