26.04.2012 03:11, Travis Oliphant kirjoitti:
[clip]
> It would be nice if every pull request created a message to this list.
> Is that even possible?
Unidirectional forwarding is possible, for instance using Github's API,
https://github.com/pv/github-pull-request-fwd
Github itself doesn'
> Patches languishing on Trac is a real problem. The issue here is not at all
> about not wanting those patches,
Oh yes I am sure of that, in the past it had not been clear what more
is necessary to get them pulled in, or how to go about satisfying the
requirements. The document you mailed on the
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Ralf Gommers
>
> >> Perhaps a more formal "development release" system could help here.
> >> IIUC, numpy pretty much has two things:
>
> > This is a good idea - not for development releases but for master.
>
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> Perhaps a more formal "development release" system could help here.
>> IIUC, numpy pretty much has two things:
> This is a good idea - not for development releases but for master. Building
> nightly/weekly binaries would help more people try out n
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:37 AM, srean wrote:
>
> On something else that was brought up: I do not consider myself
> competent/prepared enough to take on development, but it is not the
> case that I have _never_ felt the temptation. What I have found
> intimidating and styming is the perceived pol
We're kind of drifting again here, but...
Remember when all this discussion happened on usenet? Perhaps we're in
yet another awkward transition period and soon all email list-type
discussions will be on Github, Bitbucket, StackOverflow (e.g. pandas),
etc.
There's advantages and disadvantages to a
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>> It would be nice if every pull request created a message to this list.
>> Is that even possible?
>>
>> -Travis
>>
>
> This ha been a concern of mine for matplotlib as well. The closest I can
> come is to set up an RSS feed, but all the tit
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Puneeth Chaganti wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> It would be nice if every pull request created a message to this list. Is
>> that even possible?
>
> That is definitely possible and shouldn't be too hard to do,
On 4/25/12 11:08 PM, Puneeth Chaganti wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> It would be nice if every pull request created a message to this list.Is
>> that even possible?
>
> That is definitely possible and shouldn't be too hard to do, like
> Jason s
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
[snip]
>
> It would be nice if every pull request created a message to this list. Is
> that even possible?
That is definitely possible and shouldn't be too hard to do, like
Jason said. But that can potentially cause some confusion, with
On 4/25/12 8:11 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Apr 25, 2012, at 7:18 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Except for the big changes like NA and datetime, I think the debate is
>> pretty boring.
>> The main problem that I see for discussing technical issues is whether
>> there are many
>> dev
On Wednesday, April 25, 2012, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Apr 25, 2012, at 7:18 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Except for the big changes like NA and datetime, I think the debate is
> > pretty boring.
> > The main problem that I see for discussing technical issues is whether
> > ther
On Apr 25, 2012, at 7:18 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Except for the big changes like NA and datetime, I think the debate is
> pretty boring.
> The main problem that I see for discussing technical issues is whether
> there are many
> developers really interested in commenting on code and
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:24 PM, wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Travis Oliphant
>>> wrote:
>
> Do you agree that Numpy has not been ver
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:24 PM, wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
Do you agree that Numpy has not been very successful in recruiting and
maintaining new developers compared
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Travis Oliphant
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Do you agree that Numpy has not been very successful in recruiting and
> >> maintaining new developers compared to its large user-base?
> >>
> >> Compared to - say
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>>
>> I don't agree here. People work on open source to scratch an itch, so the
>> process of making a contribution needs to be easy. Widespread veto makes it
>> more diffi
On Wednesday, April 25, 2012, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Travis Oliphant
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Do you agree that Numpy has not been very successful in recruiting and
> >> maintaining new developers compared to its large user-base?
> >>
> >> Compared to - say
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you agree that Numpy has not been very successful in recruiting and
>>> maintaining new developers compared to its large user-base?
>>>
>>> Compared to - say - Sympy?
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>>
>> Do you agree that Numpy has not been very successful in recruiting and
>> maintaining new developers compared to its large user-base?
>>
>> Compared to - say - Sympy?
>>
>> Why do you think this is?
>
> I think it's mostly because
>
> Do you agree that Numpy has not been very successful in recruiting and
> maintaining new developers compared to its large user-base?
>
> Compared to - say - Sympy?
>
> Why do you think this is?
I think it's mostly because it's infrastructure that is a means to an end. I
certainly wasn't
I too have to agree with Andreas. I have been using Numpy for years in my
work, but am not versed in C so I don't even understand what numpy is doing
under the hood. I too would only be able to contribute to the code at the
python level, or as Andreas said, at improving SciPy packages and other
N
On 4/25/2012 4:51 PM, Andreas H. wrote:
> I would assume that most users see numpy
> as infrastructure, they write their own code on top of it. As a normal
> user of numpy, I wouldn't know where it would need improvement to suit
> my needs because it already does all I need. (Okay, masked arrays ar
> Do you agree that Numpy has not been very successful in recruiting and
> maintaining new developers compared to its large user-base?
>
> Compared to - say - Sympy?
>
> Why do you think this is?
I don't know about SymPy. But in my view (and I'm just a typical user of
NumPy), numpy seems to be a
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> I don't agree here. People work on open source to scratch an itch, so the
> process of making a contribution needs to be easy. Widespread veto makes it
> more difficult and instead of opening up the process, closes it down. There
> i
>
> I don't agree here. People work on open source to scratch an itch, so the
> process of making a contribution needs to be easy. Widespread veto makes it
> more difficult and instead of opening up the process, closes it down. There
> is less freedom, not more. That is one of the reasons that
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> That is one of the reasons that the smaller
> scikits attract people, they have more freedom to do what they want and
> fewer people to answer to. Scipy also has some of that advantage because
> there are a number of packages to choose fro
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 06:03:25AM -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
> Well, you have already appealed to the authority of greater experience, so
> it's a bit late to declare disinterest in the subject ;) I mean, at this
> point I really would like to see how big your FOSS is.
Chuck, I am not sure th
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:02 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Fernando Perez
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Charles R Harris
> >> wrote:
> >> > I admit to a certain curios
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:02 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Fernando Perez
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> > I admit to a certain curiosity about your own involvement in FOSS
>> > projects,
>> > and I know I'm not
I've given several talks on the subject, but I don't think I've ever written a
blog-post about it. A reasonable history does exist in the beginning of
the "Guide to NumPy" which is still available for free at
http://www.tramy.us/numpybook.pdf
-Travis
On Apr 25, 2012, at 12:18 AM, Fer
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 05:59:09PM -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
> Travis, if you are playing the BDFL role, then just make the darn decision
> and remove the code so we can get on with life. As it is you go back and
> forth and that does none of us any good, you're a big guy and you're
> rocking
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:02 PM, wrote:
> Sorry that I missed this part of numpy history, I always had the
> impression that numpy is run by a community led by Chuck and the young
> guys, David, Pauli, Stefan, Pierre; and Robert on the mailing list .
> (But I came late, and am just a balcony mup
On Apr 25, 2012, at 12:02 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 10:50 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Charles R Ha
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 10:50 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> > Fernando, I'm not checking credentials, I'm curio
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 10:50 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Fernando Perez
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> > Fernando, I'm not checking credentials, I'm c
On Apr 24, 2012, at 10:50 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> > Fernando, I'm not checking credentials, I'm curious.
>
> Well, at least I think that an inquisitive query about
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> Turnover is a problem with open source, and no matter how much discussion
> there is, if people aren't doing the work the whole thing sort of peters
> out.
That's very true, and I hope that by building a friendly and welcoming
environment
On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:41 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Charles R Harris
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> > Fernando, I'm not checking credentials, I'm curious.
>
> Well, at least I think that an inquisitive query about someone's
> background, phrased like that, can be very easily mis
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>> Fernando, I'm not checking credentials, I'm curious.
>
> Well, at least I think that an inquisitive query about someone's
> background, phrased like that, can be very easily mis
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> Fernando, I'm not checking credentials, I'm curious.
Well, at least I think that an inquisitive query about someone's
background, phrased like that, can be very easily misread. I can only
speak for myself, but I immediately had the impre
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> > I admit to a certain curiosity about your own involvement in FOSS
> projects,
> > and I know I'm not alone in this. Google shows several years of
> discussion
> > on Monotone, b
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> I admit to a certain curiosity about your own involvement in FOSS projects,
> and I know I'm not alone in this. Google shows several years of discussion
> on Monotone, but I have no idea what your contributions were
Seriously???
Please,
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Fernando Perez
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Fernando Perez
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Stéfan van der Walt
> >> wrote:
> >> > If you are referring to
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Fernando Perez
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Stéfan van der Walt
>> wrote:
>> > If you are referring to the traditional concept of a fork, and not to
>> > the type we frequently mak
On Apr 24, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Stéfan van der Walt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>> But a right to veto doesn't automatically extend to everyone who happens to
>> have
>> an interest in a topic.
This is not my view, but it is Charles view and as he is an acti
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> I think we adhere to these pretty well already, the problem is with the word
> 'everyone'. I grew up in Massachusetts where town meetings were a tradition.
> At those meetings the townsfolk voted on the budget, zoning, construction of
> p
On Tuesday, April 24, 2012, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Charles R Harris
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2012/4/24 Stéfan van der Walt >
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Charles R Harris
> >> > wrote:
> >> > The advantage of nans, I suppose, is that they are i
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> But a right to veto doesn't automatically extend to everyone who happens to
> have
> an interest in a topic.
The time has long gone when we simply hacked on NumPy for our own
benefit; if you will, NumPy users are our customers, and they
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Stéfan van der Walt wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Charles R Harris
> > wrote:
> >>> Why are we having a discussion on NAN's in a thread on consensus?
> >>> This is a strong indicator of the pr
2012/4/24 Stéfan van der Walt
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >> Why are we having a discussion on NAN's in a thread on consensus?
> >> This is a strong indicator of the problem we're facing.
> >
> > We seem to have a consensus regarding interest in the topic.
>
>
On Apr 24, 2012, at 5:52 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 2012/4/24 Stéfan van der Walt
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Charles R Harris
>>> wrote:
The advantage of nans, I suppose, is that they are in the
On Apr 24, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Stéfan van der Walt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>>> Why are we having a discussion on NAN's in a thread on consensus?
>>> This is a strong indicator of the problem we're facing.
>>
>> We seem to have a consensus regarding inte
Thanks for the reminder, Stefan and keeping us on track.
It is very helpful to those trying to sort through the messages to keep the
discussions to one subject per thread.
-Travis
On Apr 24, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Stéfan van der Walt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Charles R Harris
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>> Why are we having a discussion on NAN's in a thread on consensus?
>> This is a strong indicator of the problem we're facing.
>
> We seem to have a consensus regarding interest in the topic.
For the benefit of those of us interested in bo
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> 2012/4/24 Stéfan van der Walt
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> > The advantage of nans, I suppose, is that they are in the hardware and
>> > so
>>
>> Why are we having a discussion on NAN's i
2012/4/24 Stéfan van der Walt
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> > The advantage of nans, I suppose, is that they are in the hardware and so
>
> Why are we having a discussion on NAN's in a thread on consensus?
> This is a strong indicator of the problem we're facing
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Stéfan van der Walt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> > The advantage of nans, I suppose, is that they are in the hardware and so
>
> Why are we having a discussion on NAN's in a thread on consensus?
> This is a strong indicato
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> The advantage of nans, I suppose, is that they are in the hardware and so
Why are we having a discussion on NAN's in a thread on consensus?
This is a strong indicator of the problem we're facing.
Stéfan
_
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:25 AM, wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Pierre Haessig
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > Le 24/04/2012 15:14, Charles R Harris a
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Pierre Haessig
wrote:
> If the idea of having two payloads is to avoid a maximum of "skipna &
> friends" extra keywords, I would like it much. My feeling with my small
> experience with R is that I end up calling every function with a
> different magical set of key
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:25 AM, wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Pierre Haessig
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Le 24/04/2012 15:14, Charles R Harris a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> a) All arrays should be implicitly masked, even if
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Charles R Harris <
charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:25 AM, wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Pierre Haessig
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Le 24/04/2012 15:14, Charles R Harris a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> a) All arrays should
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:25 AM, wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Pierre Haessig
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Le 24/04/2012 15:14, Charles R Harris a écrit :
> >>
> >> a) All arrays should be implicitly masked, even if the mask isn't
> >> initially allocated. The maskna keyword can then be
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Fernando Perez
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Stéfan van der Walt
>> wrote:
>> > If you are referring to the traditional concept of a fork, and not to
>> > the type we frequentl
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Pierre Haessig
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le 24/04/2012 15:14, Charles R Harris a écrit :
>>
>> a) All arrays should be implicitly masked, even if the mask isn't
>> initially allocated. The maskna keyword can then be removed, taking
>> with it the sense that there are two ki
Hi,
Le 24/04/2012 15:14, Charles R Harris a écrit :
>
> a) All arrays should be implicitly masked, even if the mask isn't
> initially allocated. The maskna keyword can then be removed, taking
> with it the sense that there are two kinds of arrays.
>
From my lazy user perspective, having masked an
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Stéfan van der Walt
> wrote:
> > If you are referring to the traditional concept of a fork, and not to
> > the type we frequently make on GitHub, then I'm surprised that no one
> > has objected already. Wh
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Travis Oliphant
> wrote:
> > Right now we are trying to balance difficult things: stable releases
> with experimental development.
>
> Perhaps a more formal "development release" system could help here.
> II
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Stéfan van der Walt wrote:
> If you are referring to the traditional concept of a fork, and not to
> the type we frequently make on GitHub, then I'm surprised that no one
> has objected already. What would a fork solve? To paraphrase the
> regexp saying: after for
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> That is an excellent thought.
>
> We could make the odd numbered releases "experimental" and the even-numbered
> as stable.
>
> That makes some sense. What do others think?
I think the concern with that is manpower: it effectively requ
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> I'm starting to think that a fork might be the best solution to the present
> problem.
If you are referring to the traditional concept of a fork, and not to
the type we frequently make on GitHub, then I'm surprised that no one
has objecte
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> That is an excellent thought.
>
> We could make the odd numbered releases "experimental" and the
> even-numbered as stable.
>
> That makes some sense.What do others think?
>
>
I'm starting to think that a fork might be the best solution
That is an excellent thought.
We could make the odd numbered releases "experimental" and the even-numbered as
stable.
That makes some sense.What do others think?
-Travis
On Apr 23, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>> Righ
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> Right now we are trying to balance difficult things: stable releases with
> experimental development.
Perhaps a more formal "development release" system could help here.
IIUC, numpy pretty much has two things: the latest release (and pas
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>>
>>> Linux: Technically, everything you say is true. In practice, good luck
>>> convincing Linus or a subsystem maintainer to accept your patch when
>>> other people are raising substantive complaints. Here's an email I
>>> googled up
>
>> Linux: Technically, everything you say is true. In practice, good luck
>> convincing Linus or a subsystem maintainer to accept your patch when
>> other people are raising substantive complaints. Here's an email I
>> googled up in a few moments, in which Linus yells at people for trying
>> to
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>> Linux is Linus' private tree. Everything that goes in is his decision,
>> everything that stays out is his decision. Of course, he delegates much of
>> the work to people
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> If you hang around big FOSS projects, you'll see the word "consensus"
>> come up a lot. For example, the glibc steering committee recently
>> dissolved itself in favor of g
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> If you hang around big FOSS projects, you'll see the word "consensus"
> come up a lot. For example, the glibc steering committee recently
> dissolved itself in favor of governance "directly by the consensus of
> the people active in gl
Hi Nathaniel,
thanks for a solid writeup of this topic. I just want to add a note
from personal experience, regarding this specific point:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Usually disagreements are an indication that a
> better solution is possible, even when it's not c
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> If you hang around big FOSS projects, you'll see the word "consensus"
> come up a lot. For example, the glibc steering committee recently
> dissolved itself in favor of governance "directly by the consensus of
> the people active in glibc
If you hang around big FOSS projects, you'll see the word "consensus"
come up a lot. For example, the glibc steering committee recently
dissolved itself in favor of governance "directly by the consensus of
the people active in glibc development"[1]. It's the governing rule of
the IETF, which define
85 matches
Mail list logo
