Re: [Numpy-discussion] Tentative NumPy Tutorial inaccessible

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Andriy Yurchuk wrote: > Hi! > > The Tentative NumPy Tutorial is no longer accessible by the URL > http://wiki.scipy.org/Tentative_NumPy_Tutorial, it returns a 403. The link > to this page is still on NumPy homepage though. Has the page been moved > somewhere else?

[Numpy-discussion] Tentative NumPy Tutorial inaccessible

Hi! The Tentative NumPy Tutorial is no longer accessible by the URL http://wiki.scipy.org/Tentative_NumPy_Tutorial, it returns a 403. The link to this page is still on NumPy homepage though. Has the page been moved somewhere else? --- Regards, Andriy Yurchuk _

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: > > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > > > > The point is, that a sensible organization and a sensible leader has > > to take the possibility of conflict of interest into account. They > > also have to consider the p

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: > > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > > > > The point is, that a sensible organization and a sensible leader has > > to take the possibility of conflict of interest into account. They > > also have to consider the pe

Re: [Numpy-discussion] draft NEP for breaking ufunc ABI in a controlled way

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > [...] > >> When it comes to evolving these APIs in general: one unfortunate thing > >> about the PyArrayOb

Re: [Numpy-discussion] draft NEP for breaking ufunc ABI in a controlled way

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: [...] >> When it comes to evolving these APIs in general: one unfortunate thing >> about the PyArrayObject changes in 1.7 is that because they were >> implemented using *inline*

Re: [Numpy-discussion] ANN: Numpy 1.10.0rc1 released.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm pleased to announce the availability of Numpy 1.10.0rc1. Sources and 32 > bit binary packages for Windows may be found at Sourceforge. Please test > this out, as I would like to move to the final release as rapidly as > po

Re: [Numpy-discussion] facebook, twitter, and g+

+1 for twitter +0 for the others On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: > > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 9:58 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > Just posting to elicit thoughts about scipy.org having a presence in > social media for announcements. > > Of the ones l

Re: [Numpy-discussion] facebook, twitter, and g+

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 9:58 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > Hi All, > > Just posting to elicit thoughts about scipy.org having a presence in social > media for announcements. Of the ones listed in the subject, I would suggest Twitter is the most valuable. It has been great for release and

[Numpy-discussion] ANN: Numpy 1.10.0rc1 released.

Hi all, I'm pleased to announce the availability of Numpy 1.10.0rc1. Sources and 32 bit binary packages for Windows may be found at Sourceforge . Please test this out, as I would like to move to the final rel

[Numpy-discussion] facebook, twitter, and g+

Hi All, Just posting to elicit thoughts about scipy.org having a presence in social media for announcements. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > > The point is, that a sensible organization and a sensible leader has > to take the possibility of conflict of interest into account. They > also have to consider the perception of a conflict of interest. Of course, and the policies to dea

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

I am not upset nor was I ever upset about discussing the possibility of conflict of interest. Of course it can be discussed --- but it should be discussed directly about specific things --- and as others have said it is generally easily handled when it actually could arise. The key is to unders

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

I completely agree. I don't think self-merging is a good idea.I had gotten used to self merging to SciPy and NumPy until roughly 2008 or 2009 when I was finally broken of that habit after stepping on a few people's toes and learning better habits. On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Benjamin Ro

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > > > I guess we've gone off the rails pretty far at this point, so let me at > least take a step back, and make sure that you know that: > > - I have never doubted that your intensions for NumPy are anything but > good (I know they ar

Re: [Numpy-discussion] draft NEP for breaking ufunc ABI in a controlled way

That sounds like a very good idea. I know that one of the original motivations for the odd import mechanism of NumPy was the AIX platform and it's lack of a shared library.I can't imagine that is still actually a problem. A simpler, library-based mechanism would be a welcome change from my p

Re: [Numpy-discussion] draft NEP for breaking ufunc ABI in a controlled way

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Jaime Fernández del Río >> wrote: >> > We have the PyArrayObject vs PyArrayObject_fields definition in >> > ndarraytypes.h that is used t

Re: [Numpy-discussion] draft NEP for breaking ufunc ABI in a controlled way

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Jaime Fernández del Río > wrote: > > We have the PyArrayObject vs PyArrayObject_fields definition in > > ndarraytypes.h that is used to enforce access to the members through > inline > > functions rather

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Commit rights for Allan Haldane

Thanks all. I'm very happy to contribute back to a project which has been so useful to me over many years! On 09/22/2015 04:53 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > Excellent news! Welcome Allan. > > -Travis > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Charles R Harris > mailto:charlesr.har...@gmail.com>>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Commit rights for Allan Haldane

Excellent news! Welcome Allan. -Travis On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > Hi All, > > Allan Haldane has been given commit rights. Here's to the new member of > the team. > > Chuck > > ___ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > Nu

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

I don't think I've contributed code to NumPy itself, but as someone involved in the scientific python ecosystem for a while, I can't see why people would consider Continuum less of a legitimate participant or community member than individual contributors, especially if the person behind it has had

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Commit rights for Allan Haldane

Congrats Allan! Jaime On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Charles R Harris < charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > Allan Haldane has been given commit rights. Here's to the new member of > the team. > > Chuck > > ___ > NumPy-Discussion mailing

[Numpy-discussion] Commit rights for Allan Haldane

Hi All, Allan Haldane has been given commit rights. Here's to the new member of the team. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi, On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > Hi Travis > > On 2015-09-22 03:44:12, Travis Oliphant wrote: >> I'm actually offended that so many at BIDS seem eager to crucify my >> intentions when I've done nothing but give away my time, my energy, my >> resources, and my sl

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

To expand on Ryan's point a bit about recusal... this is why we have a general policy against self-merging and why peer review is so valuable. A ban on self-merging is much like recusal, and I think it is a fantastic policy. As for a BDFL, I used to like that idea having seen it work well for Linu

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi Travis On 2015-09-22 03:44:12, Travis Oliphant wrote: > I'm actually offended that so many at BIDS seem eager to crucify my > intentions when I've done nothing but give away my time, my energy, my > resources, and my sleep to NumPy for many, many years.I guess if your > intent is to drive

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

This has to be one of the most bizarre threads I've ever read in my life. Somehow companies are lurking around like the boogeyman and academics are completely free of ulterior motives and conflicts of interest? This is just asinine--we're all people and have various motivations. (Having just gotten

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi All, I've been reading this thread with amazement and a bit of worry. It seems Nathaniel's proposal is clearly an improvement, even if it is not perfect. But it is in the end for a project where, at least as seen from the outside, the main challenge is not in governance, but rather in having on

Re: [Numpy-discussion] draft NEP for breaking ufunc ABI in a controlled way

Hi, This e-mail is an attempt at proposing an API to solve Numba's needs. Attribute access int PyUFunc_Nin(PyUFuncObject *) Replaces ufunc->nin. int PyUFunc_Nout(PyUFuncObject *) Replaces ufunc->nout. int PyUFunc_Nargs(PyUFuncObject *) Replaces ufunc->nargs. PyObjec

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.10.0rc1 coming tomorrow, 22 Sept.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 04:43:18 -0500 Travis Oliphant wrote: > Absolutely it would be good if others can test. All I was suggesting is > that we do run a pretty decent set of tests upon build and that would be > helpful. > > If the numpy build recipes are not available, it is only because they have

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On 22/09/15 14:31, Perry Greenfield wrote: I’ve also stayed out of this until now. I’m surprised and disheartened at the amount of suspicion and distrust directed towards Travis. I have no idea where this distrust comes from. Nobody has invested so much of their time in NumPy. Without Travis

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

I’ve also stayed out of this until now. I’m surprised and disheartened at the amount of suspicion and distrust directed towards Travis. I don’t think anyone has invested as much personal time and resources (e.g., money) towards supporting numpy, and not just in creating it but through efforts at

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On 20/09/15 20:20, Travis Oliphant wrote: 1 - define a BDFL for the council. I would nominate chuck Harris 2 - limit the council to 3 people. I would nominate chuck, nathaniel, and pauli. 3 - add me as a permanent member of the steering council. I have stayed out of this governance debate

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Di, 2015-09-22 at 05:44 -0500, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Nathaniel Smith > wrote: > Hi Bryan, > > I understand where you're coming from, but I'd appreciate it > if we > could keep the discussion on a less visceral le

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hi Bryan, > > I understand where you're coming from, but I'd appreciate it if we > could keep the discussion on a less visceral level? Nobody's personal > integrity is being impugned, but it's the nature of this kind of > governance discus

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > The FUD I'm talking about is the anti-company FUD that has influenced > discussions in the past.I really hope that we can move past this. > I have mostly stayed out of the governance discussion, in deference to how new I am in this co

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Travis Oliphant > wrote: > >> I actually do agree with your view of the steering council as being >> usually not really being needed.You are creating a straw-man by >> indicating otherwise.I don't

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.10.0rc1 coming tomorrow, 22 Sept.

Absolutely it would be good if others can test. All I was suggesting is that we do run a pretty decent set of tests upon build and that would be helpful. If the numpy build recipes are not available, it is only because they have not been updated to use conda-build yet. If somebody wants to volun

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > Hi Travis > > On 2015-09-21 23:29:12, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > 1) nobody believes that the community should be forced to adopt numba > as > > part of ufunc core yet --- but this could happen someday just as Cython > is > > now bei

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > I actually do agree with your view of the steering council as being > usually not really being needed.You are creating a straw-man by > indicating otherwise.I don't believe a small council should do anything > *except* resolve disp

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

> > > > > May? Can you elaborate? More speculation. My own position is that > > these projects want to integrate with NumPy, not the > > converse. Regardless of my opinion, can you actually make any specific > > arguements, one way or the otehr? What if if some integrations > > actually make more s

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

I actually do agree with your view of the steering council as being usually not really being needed.You are creating a straw-man by indicating otherwise.I don't believe a small council should do anything *except* resolve disputes that cannot be resolved without one. Like you, I would expec

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

> I have no expectation that continuum will follow any of these paths, > and in most cases am not even sure what that would mean, BUT just > because I think it is useful to have a wide variety of concrete > examples to draw on -- data is good! -- there actually are *lots* of > examples of "communit

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: > >> On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:42 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: >> There is ample history of such things happening in OSS history, so I think >> that's a fair concern, even if that has not happened for numpy yet. > > Specific examples to suppor

Re: [Numpy-discussion] draft NEP for breaking ufunc ABI in a controlled way

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:38:36 -0700 Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hi Antoine, > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:44 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > > Hi Nathaniel, > > > > On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 21:13:30 -0700 > > Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> Given this, I propose that for 1.11 we: > >> 1) go ahead and hide/d

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi Bryan, I understand where you're coming from, but I'd appreciate it if we could keep the discussion on a less visceral level? Nobody's personal integrity is being impugned, but it's the nature of this kind of governance discussion that we have to consider unlikely-and-unpleasant hypotheticals.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.10.0rc1 coming tomorrow, 22 Sept.

On Sep 21, 2015 11:51 PM, "Travis Oliphant" wrote: > > Of course it will be 1.10.0 final where all the problems will show up suddenly :-) > > Perhaps we can get to where we are testing Anaconda against beta releases better. The most useful thing would actually not even involve you doing any more

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi Travis On 2015-09-21 23:29:12, Travis Oliphant wrote: > 1) nobody believes that the community should be forced to adopt numba as > part of ufunc core yet --- but this could happen someday just as Cython is > now being adopted but was proposed 8 years ago that it "could be adopted" > That's a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > I wrote my recommendations quickly before heading on a plane.I hope the > spirit of them was caught correctly.I also want to re-emphasize that I > completely understand that the Steering Council is not to be making decisions >