On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Mark Wiebe <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Bruce Southey <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> I am sorry but github pull requests do not appear to be sent to the numpy >> dev list. So you are not going to get many people to respond to that type of >> 'closed' request. Further any discussion for things that get merged into the >> master really should be on the list especially as many people do extensive >> testing. > > This is a good point, would it be possible to add numpy-discussion as a > collaborator in the NumPy github repository, so it would get those emails > too? The number of pull requests is relatively small, so this wouldn't add a > great deal more traffic. > >> >> Bug fixes probably do not need further notification but feature additions >> or API/ABI changes should have wider notification. So an email to the list >> would be greatly appreciated so that interested people can track the request >> and any discussions there. Then, depending on the nature of the request, a >> second email that notifies that the request will be merged. > > I was attempting to provide reasonable notification, but I see the pull > request vs numpy-discussion email is an issue. >> >> I can understand Windows failures because not that many people build under >> Windows but build failures under Linux are rather hard to understand. If you >> do not test Python 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 3.1 and 3.2 with the supported >> operating systems (mainly 32-bit and 64-bit Linux, Mac and Windows) then you >> must let those people who can and give them time to build and test it. That >> is really true when you acknowledged that you broke one of the 'one of the >> datetime API functions'. > > Requiring that amount of overhead before committing a change into master, > which is the unstable development branch, sounds very unreasonable to me. I > really wish the buildbot system or something equivalent could provide > continuous integration testing with minimal developer effort. I also think > the default monolithic build mode in setup.py should be removed, and the > multi-file approach should just be used, to reduce the number of possible > build configurations. I don't want to get sucked into the distutils vortex, > however, someone else needs to volunteer to make a change like this. > I would prefer for it to be relatively easy for a change to go into master, > with quick responses when things break. That's what I'm trying to provide > for the problem reports being sent to the list. There's the 1.6.x branch > available for people who want stability with the latest bug-fixes. > The datetime API already received some discussion near the start of the long > datetime thread, with the general response being to mark the datetime > functionality as experimental with big warning signs. My interpretation of > this is that it is about releases, not the unstable development branch, and > view it the same way as when NumPy master was ABI-incompatible until it was > decided to fix that approaching the 1.6 release. In this case, the ABI is > still compatible with 1.6, and I suspect the datetime API function in > question doesn't work as would be expected in 1.6 either. > My experience with the new-iterator branch was that while I got some > feedback while it was in a branch, only merging into master produced the > feedback necessary to get it properly stable. Anyone that's pulling from > master is participating in the development process, which can occasionally > involve broken builds, crashes, and bugs, and feedback from people doing > that is invaluable. I really hope nobody is automatically updating from > master in a production system anywhere, if they are they should stop... > -Mark > >> >> Bruce >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NumPy-Discussion mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > >
I do understand and really do appreciate the effort that your putting in. Thanks Bruce _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
