headers
| 7 Oct 21:39
Favicon

Merge of generalised ufuncs branch

Hi all,

The generalised ufuncs branch was made available before SciPy'08.  We
solicited comments on its implementation and structuring, but received
very little feedback.  Unless there are any further comments from the
community, I propose that we merge it.

It is unfortunate that we have so many patches waiting for review
(SciPy suffers worst, I'm afraid); clearly there are too few hours in
a day.  Nothing discourages contributions as much as a stale project,
and I hope we can avoid that.

Regards,
Stéfan
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jarrod Millman | 7 Oct 21:44
Favicon

Re: Merge of generalised ufuncs branch

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <stefan <at> sun.ac.za> wrote:
> The generalised ufuncs branch was made available before SciPy'08.  We
> solicited comments on its implementation and structuring, but received
> very little feedback.  Unless there are any further comments from the
> community, I propose that we merge it.

+1

--

-- 
Jarrod Millman
Computational Infrastructure for Research Labs
10 Giannini Hall, UC Berkeley
phone: 510.643.4014
http://cirl.berkeley.edu/
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Anne Archibald | 7 Oct 22:10

Re: Merge of generalised ufuncs branch

2008/10/7 Stéfan van der Walt <stefan <at> sun.ac.za>:

> The generalised ufuncs branch was made available before SciPy'08.  We
> solicited comments on its implementation and structuring, but received
> very little feedback.  Unless there are any further comments from the
> community, I propose that we merge it.

Sounds good to me - I've counted at least three or four threads on the
mailing lists wishing for the ufuncized linear algebra this would
allow since it was put forward. (Of course, these won't appear until
someone implements them - perhaps a start would be for someone to
write a tutorial on using the new generalized ufunc code...)

> It is unfortunate that we have so many patches waiting for review
> (SciPy suffers worst, I'm afraid); clearly there are too few hours in
> a day.  Nothing discourages contributions as much as a stale project,
> and I hope we can avoid that.

The problem may perhaps be that not many people feel they are in a
position to actually do the reviews, so that everyone is waiting on an
imagined few "real" developers to place the Official Stamp of
Approval. Perhaps an informal rule of thumb for acceptance of patches?
How about: posted to list, reviewed by someone not the author who's
had at least one patch accepted before, and no objections on the list?
Anything that receives objections can fall through to the usual
decision by discussion on the mailing list, this is just intended for
those patches that everyone just kind of shrugs and says "looks all
right to me".

Anne
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Charles R Harris | 7 Oct 22:52

Re: Merge of generalised ufuncs branch



On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <stefan <at> sun.ac.za> wrote:
Hi all,

The generalised ufuncs branch was made available before SciPy'08.  We
solicited comments on its implementation and structuring, but received
very little feedback.  Unless there are any further comments from the
community, I propose that we merge it.

It is unfortunate that we have so many patches waiting for review
(SciPy suffers worst, I'm afraid); clearly there are too few hours in
a day.  Nothing discourages contributions as much as a stale project,
and I hope we can avoid that.

I've been thinking it's about time to get to this. Can you start by merging as much of the current trunk as you can so we can concentrate on the differences?

Chuck 


_______________________________________________
Numpy-discussion mailing list
Numpy-discussion <at> scipy.org
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Charles R Harris | 7 Oct 22:53

Re: Merge of generalised ufuncs branch



On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris <at> gmail.com> wrote:


On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <stefan <at> sun.ac.za> wrote:
Hi all,

The generalised ufuncs branch was made available before SciPy'08.  We
solicited comments on its implementation and structuring, but received
very little feedback.  Unless there are any further comments from the
community, I propose that we merge it.

It is unfortunate that we have so many patches waiting for review
(SciPy suffers worst, I'm afraid); clearly there are too few hours in
a day.  Nothing discourages contributions as much as a stale project,
and I hope we can avoid that.

I've been thinking it's about time to get to this. Can you start by merging as much of the current trunk as you can so we can concentrate on the differences?

Or maybe just start a new branch and see if the patch still applies.

Chuck 


_______________________________________________
Numpy-discussion mailing list
Numpy-discussion <at> scipy.org
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane