On 10/23/2011 10:49 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > But I (and presumably others) were unaware of the pull request, > because it turns out that actually Mark did*not* point to the pull > request, at least in email to either me or numpy-discussion. As far as > I can tell, the first time that pull request has ever been mentioned > on the list is in Pauli's email today. (I did worry I might have > missed it, so I just double-checked the archives for August 18-August > 27, which is the time period the pull request was open, and couldn't > find anything there.)
Ideally, Mark's message announcing that his branch was ready for testing (a message that started a thread of constructive comment) would have mentioned the pull request: http://www.mail-archive.com/numpy-discussion@scipy.org/msg33151.html Ultimately, though, the numpy core developers must decide what goes in and what does not. Consensus is desirable but may not always be possible or optimal, especially if "consensus" is interpreted as "unanimity". There is a risk in deciding to accept a major change, but it is mitigated by the ability to make future changes, and it is a risk that must be taken if progress is to be made. As a numpy user, I was pleased to see Travis make the decision that Mark should get on with the coding, and I was pleased to see Charles make the decision to merge the pull request. Eric _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
