On Jun 23, 2012, at 7:12 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones <tho...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What has been done in the past is that an intent to fork is announced some > > two weeks in advance so that people can weigh in on what needs to be done > > before the fork. The immediate fork was a bit hasty. Likewise, when I > > suggested going to the github issue tracking, I opened a discussion on > > needed tags, but voila, there it was with an incomplete set and no > > discussion. That to seemed hasty. > > I don't have a particular dog in this fight, but it seems like neither > creating the fork nor turning on issues are worth disagreeing to much > about. There's going to be a 1.7 fork sometime soon, and whether it > gets created now or after discussion seems mostly academic. Even if > there were changes that needed to go into both branches, git makes > that straightforward. Likewise github issues. Turning them on has > minimal cost, especially given that pull requests already go through > github, and gives another route for bug reporting and a way to > experiment with issues to inform the discussion. > > From my point of view, the haste seems to be driven by SciPy2012. And why the > rush after we have wasted three months running in circles for lack of a > decision, with Mark and Nathaniel sent off to write a report that had no > impact on the final outcome. The github thing also ended the thread and now > someone has to clean up the result. It also appears that that work is being > done by request rather than by a volunteer, that has subtle implications in > the long run. >
The report has tremendous impact on the final outcome --- especially because the outcome is not *final*. I think the report helped clarify exactly what the differences were between Mark and Nathaniel's viewpoints and absolutely impacted the outcome for 1.7. I don't agree with your interpretation of events. I'm not sure what is meant by "request rather than volunteer", but I think it has something to do with your perspective on how NumPy should be developed. > Things have been happening by fits and starts, with issues picked up and than > dropped half done. That isn't a good way to move forward. > That's the problem with volunteer labor. It's at the whim of the time people have available. The only time it's different is when people have resources to make it different. Issues are picked up when people have the time to pick them up. It turns out that good people are hard to find and it takes time to get them engaged. NumFOCUS is actively raising money to fund technology fellowships in order to provide full-time support to both mentors and students. The hope is that good people who want to continue to help the NumPy project will be found and supported. Best, -Travis > Chuck > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
