On Sun, Feb 15, 2026 at 9:35 PM sebastian <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey! thanks a lot for chiming in, still watching the videos! > Awesome, definitely let me know if you have any questions/feedback! For the maintainer I think the "blast radius" framework could be very > useful and it > may be nice to flesh it out (I don't think there is anything NumPy > specific about it, > i.e. in my mind (1) is basically examples for the blast radius?). > Actually, I think this is something where the NumPy-specific bits could be extraordinarily helpful, and in a sense, it manifests the worldview that you & other maintainers have painstakingly built up over time. There will be some parts that are pretty generic to all software projects, but there are quite a lot of subtle and intricate design choices that go into making Numpy what it is. These may not be obvious to a coding LLM that, ultimately, will regress to the mean on matters of technical design and architecture. Examples include: * To what degree is a performance reduction acceptable, and when is it a regression? * What kinds of hardware optimizations are acceptable, at the price of maintainability? * How important is it to insist that all tests pass for all supported architectures? (Ie what is the compatibility rubric?) * Which downstream projects or specific API surfaces are important to prioritize testing on, for numerical stability, accuracy, performance, etc.? I'm sure you all can come up with many more :-) I also believe that maintainers writing down your unique & specific individual perspectives will ultimately form the foundations of a "Numpy code bot" that can assist in development in the future, assuming we get a non-legally-problematic coding model created. -Peter
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3//lists/numpy-discussion.python.org Member address: [email protected]
