On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Darren Dale <dsdal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Charles R Harris >> <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Darren Dale <dsdal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 21:23, Darren Dale <dsdal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 20:50, Darren Dale <dsdal...@gmail.com> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Robert Kern >> >> >>>> <robert.k...@gmail.com> >> >> >>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 18:43, Darren Dale <dsdal...@gmail.com> >> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern >> >> >>>>>> <robert.k...@gmail.com> >> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>> Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: >> >> >>>>>>> logical >> >> >>>>>>> arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering >> >> >>>>>>> these >> >> >>>>>>> questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until >> >> >>>>>>> you >> >> >>>>>>> are >> >> >>>>>>> blue in the face, but without real data to premise them on, >> >> >>>>>>> they >> >> >>>>>>> are >> >> >>>>>>> no better than the gut feelings. They can often be >> >> >>>>>>> significantly >> >> >>>>>>> worse >> >> >>>>>>> if the strength of the logic gets confused with the strength of >> >> >>>>>>> the >> >> >>>>>>> premise. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> If I recall correctly, the convention of not breaking ABI >> >> >>>>>> compatibility in minor releases was established in response to >> >> >>>>>> the >> >> >>>>>> last ABI compatibility break. Am I wrong? >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> I'm not sure how this relates to the material quoted of me, but >> >> >>>>> no, >> >> >>>>> you're not wrong. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Just trying to provide historical context to support the strength >> >> >>>> of >> >> >>>> the premise. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The existence of the policy is not under question (anymore; I >> >> >>> settled >> >> >>> that with old email a while ago). The question is whether to change >> >> >>> the policy. >> >> >> >> >> >> So I have gathered. I question whether the concerns that lead to >> >> >> that >> >> >> decision in the first place are somehow less important now. >> >> > >> >> > And we're back to gut feeling territory again. >> >> >> >> That's unfair. I can't win based on gut, you know how skinny I am. >> >> __ >> > >> > We haven't reached the extreme of the two physicists at SLAC who stepped >> > outside to settle a point with fisticuffs. But with any luck we will get >> > there ;) >> >> Really? That also happened here at CHESS a long time ago, only they >> didn't go outside to fight over who got to use the conference room. >> ______ > > Heh. I can't vouch for the story personally, I got it from a guy who was a > grad student back in the day working on a detector at Fermilab along with a > cast of hundreds.
Yeah, same here. Although, one of the combatants at CHESS, after he retired, beat an intruder into submission with a fireplace poker. That story made the local papers. Darren _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
