On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Travis Oliphant <tra...@continuum.io>wrote:
> > On May 5, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Charles R Harris >> <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Ralf Gommers < >> ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Pauli Virtanen <p...@iki.fi> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> 01.05.2012 21:34, Ralf Gommers kirjoitti: >> >>> [clip] >> >>> > At this point it's probably good to look again at the problems we >> want >> >>> > to solve: >> >>> > 1. responsive user interface (must absolutely have) >> >>> >> >>> Now that it comes too late: with some luck, I've possibly hit on what >> >>> was ailing the Tracs (max_diff_bytes configured too large). Let's see >> if >> >>> things work better from now on... >> >> >> >> >> >> That's amazing - not only does it not give errors anymore, it's also an >> >> order of magnitude faster. >> >> >> > >> > So maybe we could just stick with trac. Performance was really the >> sticking >> > point. >> > >> > Chuck >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > NumPy-Discussion mailing list >> > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org >> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >> > >> >> FWIW I'm pretty strongly in favor of GHI for NumPy/SciPy (I am going >> to get involved in NumPy dev eventually, promise). While warty in some >> of the places already mentioned, I have found it to be very >> low-friction and low-annoyance in my own dev process (nearing 1000 >> issues closed in the last year in pandas). But there are fewer cooks >> in the kitchen with pandas so perhaps this experience wouldn't be >> identical with NumPy. The biggest benefit I've seen is community >> involvement that you really wouldn't see if I were using a Trac or >> something else hosted elsewhere. Users are on GitHub and it for some >> reason gives people a feeling of engagement in the open source process >> that I don't see anywhere else. > > > Feels like it's time to make a decision on this. > > I see no blocking objections against Github, so perhaps we should give it > a go. The attachment issue for data files can be solved by relocating those > to a server we still administer. Trac is currently annoying me also, > because I need to change the milestone of ~50 tickets and have no good way > of doing it. So nothing's perfect. Github's hosting service, possibly more > user involvement and centralizing all our tools there may be enough to > outweigh the limitations of GHI. > > > Proposal: move NumPy tickets to Github. > > > +1 > > The process does need planning. We don't need to rush, but it would be > great to get it done by end of June. To Charles' list and Ralf's > suggestions, I would add setting up a server that can relay pull requests > to the mailing list. > > Don't know if you saw this, but it looks like Pauli is pretty far along in fixing this problem: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.numeric.general/49551/focus=49744 Ralf > NumFocus can setup that server and provide login permissions to those > needing to administer it. >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion