On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Charles R Harris<charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Darren Dale <dsdal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:02 PM, David Cournapeau<courn...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Darren Dale<dsdal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi David, >> > >> >>> I already gave my own opinion on py3k, which can be summarized as: >> >>> - it is a huge effort, and no core numpy/scipy developer has >> >>> expressed the urge to transition to py3k, since py3k does not bring >> >>> much for scientific computing. >> >>> - very few packages with a significant portion of C have been ported >> >>> to my knowledge, hence very little experience on how to do it. AFAIK, >> >>> only small packages have been ported. Even big, pure python projects >> >>> have not been ported. The only big C project to have been ported is >> >>> python itself, and it broke compatibility and used a different source >> >>> tree than python 2. >> >>> - it remains to be seen whether we can do the py3k support in the >> >>> same source tree as the one use for python >= 2.4. Having two source >> >>> trees would make the effort even much bigger, well over the current >> >>> developers capacity IMHO. >> >>> >> >>> The only area where I could see the PSF helping is the point 2: more >> >>> documentation, more stories about 2->3 transition. >> >> >> >> I'm surprised to hear you say that. I would think additional developer >> >> and/or financial resources would be useful, for all of the reasons you >> >> listed. >> > >> > If there was enough resources to pay someone very familiar with numpy >> > codebase for a long time, then yes, it could be useful - but I assume >> > that's out of the question. This would be very expensive as it would >> > requires several full months IMO. >> > >> > The PSF could help for the point 3, by porting other projects to py3k >> > and documenting it. The only example I know so far is pycog2 >> > >> > (http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-porting/2008-December/000010.html). >> > >> > Paying people to do documentation about porting C code seems like a >> > good way to spend money: it would be useful outside numpy community, >> > and would presumably be less costly. >> >> Another topic concerning documentation is API compatibility. The >> python devs have requested projects not use the 2-3 transition as an >> excuse to change their APIs, but numpy is maybe a special case. I'm >> thinking about PEP3118. Is numpy going to transition to python 3 and >> then down the road transition again to the new buffer protocol? What >> is the strategy here? My underinformed impression is that there isn't >> one, since every time PEP3118 is considered in the context of the 2-3 >> transition somebody helpfully reminds the list that we aren't supposed >> to break APIs. Numpy is a critical python library, perhaps the >> transition presents an opportunity, if the community can yield a >> little on numpy's C api. For example, in the long run, what would it >> take to get numpy (or the core thereof) into the standard library, and >> can we take steps now in that direction? Would the numpy devs be >> receptive to comments from the python devs on the existing numpy >> codebase? >> >> I'm willing to pitch in and work on the transition, not because I need >> python-3 right now, but because the transition needs to happen and it >> would benefit everyone in the long run. But I would like to know that >> we are making the most of the opportunity, and have considered our >> options. >> > > Making numpy more buffer centric is an interesting idea and might be where > we want to go with the ufuncs, but the new buffer protocol didn't go in > until python 2.6. If there was no rush I'd go with Fernando and wait until > we could be all python 2.6 all the time.
I wonder what such a timeframe would look like, what would decide when to require python-2.6 for future releases of packages. Could a maintenance-only branch be created for the numpy-1.4 or 1.5 series, and then future development require 2.6 or 3.1? > However, if anyone has the time to work on getting the c-code up to snuff > and finding out what the problems are I'm all for that. I have some notes on > the transition in the src directory and if you do anything please keep them > current. I will have a look, thank you for putting those notes together. Darren _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
