Hi, On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Charles R Harris <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Matthew Brett <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Nathaniel Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I was surprised today to notice that Mark's NA mask support appears to >> > have been merged into numpy master and is described in the draft >> > release notes[1]. My surprise is because merging it to mainline >> > without any discussion on the list seems to contradict what what >> > Travis wrote in July, that it was being developed as an experiment and >> > explicitly *not* intended to be merged without further discussion: >> > >> > "Basically, because there is not consensus and in fact a strong and >> > reasonable opposition to specific points, Mark's NEP as proposed >> > cannot be accepted in its entirety right now. However, I believe an >> > implementation of his NEP is useful and will be instructive in >> > resolving the issues and so I have instructed him to spend Enthought >> > time on the implementation. Any changes that need to be made to the >> > API before it is accepted into a released form of NumPy can still be >> > made even after most of the implementation is completed as far as I >> > understand it."[2] >> > >> > Can anyone explain what the plan is here? Is the idea to continue the >> > discussion and rework the API while it is in master, delaying the next >> > release for as long as it takes to achieve consensus? Or is there some >> > mysterious git thing going on where "master" is actually an >> > experimental branch and the real mainline development is happening >> > somewhere else? Or something else I'm not thinking of? Please help me >> > understand. >> >> I don't know about you, but watching the development from a distance >> it became increasingly clear to me that this would happen. I"m sure >> you've had the experience as I have, of mixing several desirable >> changes into the same set of commits, and it's hard work to avoid >> this. I imagine this is what happened with Mark's MA changes. >> >> The result is actually an extension of the problems of the original >> discussion, which is a feeling that we the community do not have a say >> in the development. >> >> I think this email might be a plea to the numpy steering group, and to >> Travis in particular, to see if we can use a discussion of this series >> of events to decide on a good way to proceed in future. >> > > Oh come, people had plenty to say, you and Nathaniel in particular. Mark > pointed to the pull request, anyone who was interested could comment on it, > Benjamin Root did so, for instance. The fact things didn't go the way you > wanted doesn't indicate insufficient discussion. And you are certainly > welcome to put together an alternative and put up a pull request.
I was also guessing that something like this would be the reply to Nathaniel's post. I think this reply is rude because it implies some sort of sour-grapes from Nathaniel, when he is politely referring back to an explicit reassurance from Travis. I was trying to avoid this sort of thing by concentrating on thinking about what to do in future. Best, Matthew Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
