+1 on the NEP guideline As part of a team building a scientific analysis library, I'm attempting to understand the current state of NumPy development and its likely future (with a view to contributing if appropriate). The proposed NEP process would make that a whole lot easier. And if nothing else, it would reduce the chance of me posting questions about topics that had already been discussed/decided!
Without the process the NEPs become another potential source of confusion and mixed messages. On 1 March 2012 03:02, Travis Oliphant wrote: > I Would like to hear the opinions of others on that point, > but yes, I think that is an appropriate procedure. > > Travis > > -- > Travis Oliphant > (on a mobile) > 512-826-7480 > > > On Feb 29, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Matthew Brett > <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Travis Oliphant > <tra...@continuum.io> wrote: > >> We already use the NEP process for such decisions. This > discussion came from simply from the *idea* of writing such a NEP. > >> > >> Nothing has been decided. Only opinions have been shared > that might influence the NEP. This is all pretty premature, > though --- migration to C++ features on a trial branch is > some months away were it to happen. > > > > Fernando can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was asking a > > governance question. That is: would you (as BDF$N) consider the > > following guideline: > > > > "As a condition for accepting significant changes to Numpy, for each > > significant change, there will be a NEP. The NEP shall follow the > > same model as the Python PEPs - that is - there will be a summary of > > the changes, the issues arising, the for / against opinions and > > alternatives offered. There will usually be a draft implementation. > > The NEP will contain the resolution of the discussion as it > relates to > > the code" > > > > For example, the masked array NEP, although very > substantial, contains > > little discussion of the controversy arising, or the intended > > resolution of the controversy: > > > > > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/3f685a1a990f7b6e5149c80b52 > 436fb4207e49f5/doc/neps/missing-data.rst > > > > I mean, although it is useful, it is not in the form of a PEP, as > > Fernando has described it. > > > > Would you accept extending the guidelines to the NEP format? > > > > Best, > > > > Matthew > > _______________________________________________ > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > > _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
