On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 20:58, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > I was surprised today to notice that Mark's NA mask support appears to >>> > have been merged into numpy master and is described in the draft >>> > release notes[1]. My surprise is because merging it to mainline >>> > without any discussion on the list seems to contradict what what >>> > Travis wrote in July, that it was being developed as an experiment and >>> > explicitly *not* intended to be merged without further discussion: >>> > >>> > "Basically, because there is not consensus and in fact a strong and >>> > reasonable opposition to specific points, Mark's NEP as proposed >>> > cannot be accepted in its entirety right now. However, I believe an >>> > implementation of his NEP is useful and will be instructive in >>> > resolving the issues and so I have instructed him to spend Enthought >>> > time on the implementation. Any changes that need to be made to the >>> > API before it is accepted into a released form of NumPy can still be >>> > made even after most of the implementation is completed as far as I >>> > understand it."[2] >>> > >>> > Can anyone explain what the plan is here? Is the idea to continue the >>> > discussion and rework the API while it is in master, delaying the next >>> > release for as long as it takes to achieve consensus? Or is there some >>> > mysterious git thing going on where "master" is actually an >>> > experimental branch and the real mainline development is happening >>> > somewhere else? Or something else I'm not thinking of? Please help me >>> > understand. >>> >>> I don't know about you, but watching the development from a distance >>> it became increasingly clear to me that this would happen. I"m sure >>> you've had the experience as I have, of mixing several desirable >>> changes into the same set of commits, and it's hard work to avoid >>> this. I imagine this is what happened with Mark's MA changes. >>> >>> The result is actually an extension of the problems of the original >>> discussion, which is a feeling that we the community do not have a say >>> in the development. >>> >>> I think this email might be a plea to the numpy steering group, and to >>> Travis in particular, to see if we can use a discussion of this series >>> of events to decide on a good way to proceed in future. >>> >> >> Oh come, people had plenty to say, you and Nathaniel in particular. Mark >> pointed to the pull request, anyone who was interested could comment on it, >> Benjamin Root did so, for instance. The fact things didn't go the way you >> wanted doesn't indicate insufficient discussion. And you are certainly >> welcome to put together an alternative and put up a pull request. > > I was also guessing that something like this would be the reply to > Nathaniel's post.
But it wasn't. It was a reply to your message. > I think this reply is rude because it implies some sort of sour-grapes > from Nathaniel, when he is politely referring back to an explicit > reassurance from Travis. What Travis assured did happen, just on the pull request (on which everyone's input was requested and where most "should this be merged?" discussions are *meant* to happen) rather than on the mailing list. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion