Below is the input on this topic from Christian Lorentzen, who for some reason didn't get through the mailing list approval to post directly:
Hi there IMHO, numpy should definitely endorse SPEC7, otherwise this SPEC should be removed or updated. About SPEC0, please note that according to the text in https://scientific-python.org/specs/spec-0000/ numpy already endorses it which I find strange (maybe a misunderstanding). In scikit-learn, we had a discussion about SPEC0 and decided to not endorse it because we want longer support for older versions. The extra cost so far is small enough. On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 12:05 PM Sebastian Berg <sebast...@sipsolutions.net> wrote: > Hi all, > > TL;DR: NumPy should endorse some or all of the new SPECs if we like > them. If you don't or do like them, please discuss, otherwise I > suspect we will propose and endorsing them soon and do it if a few core > maintainers agree. > > --- > > > The Scientific Python project has the SPEC process to write up helpful > tips/patterns [1] with the idea that projects "endorse" them to > indicate that we think following the SPEC is a good idea. > > One example probably known best is SPEC 0, which is NEP 27 (the > suggested minimum supported versions for dependencies, e.g. > Python/library versions). > > There has been a lot of work recently to write some new SPECs, and the > following ones are up for endorsement by NumPy: > > * 1 -- Lazy Loading of Submodules and Functions > https://scientific-python.org/specs/spec-0001 > * 6 -- Keys to the Castle > https://scientific-python.org/specs/spec-0006/ > * 7 -- Seeding Pseudo-Random Number Generation > https://scientific-python.org/specs/spec-0007/ > * 8 -- Securing the Release Process > https://scientific-python.org/specs/spec-0008/ > > Endorsing them means we think they are good guidance for projects, not > necessarily strictly following them [2]. > > Without input, I suspect we may endorse them soon (if a few maintainers > give a thumbs up). But of course it would be great to discuss and > maybe improve the SPECs in the progress! > > SPEC 7 is important, because it describes how we would like other > libraries to use the new random number generation API in the future > (but actually doesn't apply directly). > > Cheers, > > Sebastian > > > > [1] The SPECs are not necessarily fixed. If you think they are missing > a note/solution, we can modify them. > > [2] With it's flat namespace, I am not sure e.g. lazy-loading is of > much use to NumPy (just like we have longer compatibility than SPEC 0). > > _______________________________________________ > 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: ralf.gomm...@gmail.com >
_______________________________________________ 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
