On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 1:32 AM Hameer Abbasi <einstein.edi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's a lot of very good questions! Let me see if I can answer them > one-by-one. > > On 06.09.19 09:49, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > But even that could be accomplished by just > putting something in the docs. And adding the alias has substantial > risks: it makes unumpy tied to the numpy release cycle and > compatibility rules, and it means that we're committing to maintaining > unumpy ~forever even if Hameer or Quansight move onto other things. > That seems like a lot to take on for such vague benefits? > > I can assure you Travis has had the goal of "replatforming SciPy" from as > far back as I met him, he's spawned quite a few efforts in that direction > along with others from Quansight (and they've led to nice projects). > Quansight, as I see it, is unlikely to abandon something like this if it > becomes successful (and acceptance of this NEP will be a huge success > story). > Let me address this separately, since it's not really a technical concern. First, this is not what we say for other contributions. E.g. we didn't say no to Pocketfft because Martin Reineck may move on, or __array_function__ because Stephan may get other interests at some point, or a whole new numpy.random, etc. Second, this is not about Quansight. At Quansight Labs we've been able to create time for Hameer to build this, and me and others to contribute - which is very nice, but the two are not tied inextricably together. In the end it's still individuals submitting this NEP. I have been a NumPy dev for ~10 years before joining Quansight, and my future NumPy contributions are not dependent on staying at Quansight (not that I plan to go anywhere!). I'm guessing the same is true for others. Third, unumpy is a fairly thin layer over uarray, which already has another user in SciPy. Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
