Yet another twirl to the existing spaghetti https://www.continuum.io/blog/developer-blog/open-sourcing-anaconda-accelerate
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > >>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Matthew Brett < > matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> > wrote: > >>>>> I updated the bit about OpenBLAS wheel with some more information on > >>>>> the status of that work. It's not super important, but FYI. > >>>> > >>>> Maybe remove the bit (of my text) that you crossed out, or removed the > >>>> strikethrough and qualify? At the moment it's confusing, because I > >>>> believe what I wrote is correct, so leaving in there and crossed out > >>>> looks kinda weird. > >>> > >>> Eh, it's a little weird because there's no specification needed > >>> really, we can implement it any time we want to. It was stalled for a > >>> long time because I ran into arcane technical problems dealing with > >>> the MacOS linker, but that's solved and now it's just stalled due to > >>> lack of attention. > >>> > >>> I deleted the text but feel free to qualify further if you think it's > useful. > >> > >> Are you saying that we should consider this specification approved > >> already? Or that we should go ahead without waiting for approval? I > >> guess the latter. I guess you're saying you think there would be no > >> bad consequences for doing this if the spec subsequently changed > >> before being approved? It might be worth adding something like that > >> to the text, in case there's somebody who wants to do some work on > >> that. > > > > It's not a PEP. It will never be approved because there is no-one to > > approve it :-). > > Sure, but it is a pull-request, it hasn't been merged - so I assume > that someone is expecting to make or receive more feedback on it. > > > The only reason for writing it as a spec is to > > potentially help coordinate with others who want to get in on making > > these kinds of packages themselves, and the main motivator for that > > will be if one of us starts doing it and proves it works... > > If I had to guess, I'd guess that you are saying Yes to "no bad > consequences" (above)? Would you mind adding something about that in > the text to make it clear? > > Cheers, > > Matthew > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
