Hi, On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Travis Oliphant <[email protected]> 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/3f685a1a990f7b6e5149c80b52436fb4207e49f5/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 [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
