On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 7:06 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk > <m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Nathaniel, > > > > Overall, hugely in favour! For detailed comments, it would be good to > > have a link to a PR; could you put that up? > > Well, there's a PR here: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/10706 > > But, this raises a question :-). (One which also came up here: > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/10704#issuecomment-371684170) > > There are sensible two workflows we could use (or at least, two that I > can think of): > > 1. We merge updates to the NEPs as we go, so that whatever's in the > repo is the current draft. Anyone can go to the NEP webpage at > http://numpy.org/neps (WIP, see #10702) to see the latest version of > all NEPs, whether accepted, rejected, or in progress. Discussion > happens on the mailing list, and line-by-line feedback can be done by > quote-replying and commenting on individual lines. From time to time, > the NEP author takes all the accumulated feedback, updates the > document, and makes a new post to the list to let people know about > the updated version. > > This is how python-dev handles PEPs. > > 2. We use Github itself to manage the review. The repo only contains > "accepted" NEPs; draft NEPs are represented by open PRs, and rejected > NEPs are represented by PRs that were closed-without-merging. > Discussion uses Github's commenting/review tools, and happens in the > PR itself. > > This is roughly how Rust handles their RFC process, for example: > https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs > > Trying to do some hybrid version of these seems like it would be > pretty painful, so we should pick one. > > Given that historically we've tried to use the mailing list for > substantive features/planning discussions, and that our NEP process > has been much closer to workflow 1 than workflow 2 (e.g., there are > already a bunch of old NEPs already in the repo that are effectively > rejected/withdrawn), I think we should maybe continue that way, and > keep discussions here? > > So my suggestion is discussion should happen on the list, and NEP > updates should be merged promptly, or just self-merged. Sound good? Agreed that overall (1) is better than (2), rejected NEPs should be visible. However there's no need for super-quick self-merge, and I think it would be counter-productive. Instead, just send a PR, leave it open for some discussion, and update for detailed comments (as well as long in-depth discussions that only a couple of people care about) in the Github UI and major ones on the list. Once it's stabilized a bit, then merge with status "Draft" and update once in a while. I think this is also much more in like with what python-dev does, I have seen substantial discussion on Github and have not seen quick self-merges. Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
