On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi, > > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Pearu Peterson > <pearu.peter...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Would it be possible to setup a signing system where anyone who would > like > > to support Clint could sign and advertise the system on relevant mailing > > lists? > > This would provide larger body of supporters for this letter and perhaps > > will have greater impact to whom the letter will be > > addressed. Personally, I would be happy to sign to such a letter. > > > > On the letter: the letter should also mention scipy community as they > > benefit > > most from the ATLAS speed. > > Maybe it would be best phrased then as 'numpy and scipy developers' > instead of the steering group? > > I'm not sure how this kind of thing works for tenure letters, I would > guess that if there are a very large number of signatures it might be > difficult to see who is being represented... I'm open to suggestions. > I can also ask Clint. > > I've added you as an editor - would you consider adding your name at > the end, and maybe something about scipy? - you know the scipy blas / > lapack stuff much better than I do. > Done for adding the name. The document is currently numpy oriented and I am not sure where to enter with scipy.. Technical summary of the situation with scipy blas/lapack stuff: The main difference in between numpy and scipy lapack-wise is that numpy has a lite C version of few lapack routines in case the lapack libraries are not available for building it while for scipy the lapack libraries are prerequisites as scipy provides interfaces to a much larger number of lapack routines. Having ATLAS in addition would greatly increase the performance of these routines. Pearu
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
