Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

Great idea -- thanks for pushing this forward all. In the end, you can have the NEPs in a separate repo, and still publish them closely with the main docs (intersphinx is pretty cool), or have them in the same repo and publish them separately. So I say let the folks doing the work decide what

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Would be great to have structure, and especially a template - ideally, > the latter is enough for someone to create a NEP, i.e., has lots of > in-template documentation. > > One thing I'd recommend thinking

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

Would be great to have structure, and especially a template - ideally, the latter is enough for someone to create a NEP, i.e., has lots of in-template documentation. One thing I'd recommend thinking a little about is to what extend a NEP is "frozen" after acceptance. In astropy we've seen

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 5:39 PM, wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Ralf Gommers >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Nathaniel Smith

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Jarrod Millman wrote: > I was planning on looking at/working on the main doc generating system > and the main webpage (for numpy and scipy) soon (over the winter > break), but I didn't want to get too many things in the discussion > right

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> - NEPs are really part of the development process, not

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> - NEPs are really part of the development process, not an output for >> end-users -- they're certainly useful to have available as a >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

I was planning on looking at/working on the main doc generating system and the main webpage (for numpy and scipy) soon (over the winter break), but I didn't want to get too many things in the discussion right now. My immediate interest is getting agreement on the first two items: - A purpose and

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

On 5 December 2017 at 17:32, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Ralf Gommers >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Jarrod Millman

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Jarrod Millman > > wrote: > >> Assuming that sounds good, my tentative next steps

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > - NEPs are really part of the development process, not an output for > end-users -- they're certainly useful to have available as a > reference, but if we're asking end-users to look at them on a regular > basis then I

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Jarrod Millman > wrote: >> Assuming that sounds good, my tentative next steps are: >> >> - I'll draft a purpose and process NEP based on PEP 1 and a few other >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Jarrod Millman wrote: > Hi all, > > Since we expect to be writing some NEPs in the near future, Nathaniel > and I were looking at how they're organized, and realized that the > process is a bit underspecified and it's a hard to tell the