On 10/23/2011 04:07 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 20:58, Matthew Brett<[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > But it wasn't. It was a reply to your message. > >> 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. > > What Travis assured did happen, just on the pull request (on which > everyone's input was requested and where most "should this be merged?" > discussions are *meant* to happen) rather than on the mailing list.
Except that for a project with a large user community (like numpy), you will _not_ get the feedback you are looking for on github pull-request pages. That's because most users do not look at detailed developer related things like pull requests. But they do read the mailing list. I don't use these features so I don't have a dog in this fight. But potentially controversial changes really should be discussed on the mailing list rather than on pull requests (and yes, I know that there was a lot of discussion about this stuff some months ago). Scott -- Scott M. Ransom Address: NRAO Phone: (434) 296-0320 520 Edgemont Rd. email: [email protected] Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA GPG Fingerprint: 06A9 9553 78BE 16DB 407B FFCA 9BFA B6FF FFD3 2989 _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
