On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:26 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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 rejected/withdrawn), I think we should maybe continue that way, and 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. > > I have a slight preference for managing the discussion on Github. Note that I added a `component: NEP` label and that discussion can take place on merged/closed PRs, the index could also contain links to proposed NEP PRs. If we just left PR open until acceptance/rejection the label would allow the proposed NEPs to be easily found, especially if we include the NEP number in the title, something like `NEP-10111: ` . Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
