On Sunday, October 23, 2011, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > 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: >>> 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, > > Ah, this helps answer my initial question -- I can see how you might > have thought things were more resolved if you thought that we were > aware of the pull request and chose not to participate. That's a > reasonable source of confusion. > > But I (and presumably others) were unaware of the pull request, > because it turns out that actually Mark did *not* point to the pull > request, at least in email to either me or numpy-discussion. As far as > I can tell, the first time that pull request has ever been mentioned > on the list is in Pauli's email today. (I did worry I might have > missed it, so I just double-checked the archives for August 18-August > 27, which is the time period the pull request was open, and couldn't > find anything there.) > > (Also, for the record, I'd ask that next time you want to make sure > that there has been sufficient discussion on a controversial feature > that has "strong and reasonable opposition", you make more of an > effort to make sure that the relevant stakeholders are aware...?) > >> 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. > > In the interests of not turning this into a game of procedural > brinksmanship, can we agree that the point of pull requests and such > is to make sure that code which ends up in numpy releases generally > matches what the community wants? Obviously the community has not > reached a consensus on this code and API, so I'll prepare a pull > request to temporarily revert the change, and we can work from there. > > -- Nathaniel >
The discussion started on mark's branches, which was referred to several times in emails (that's how I started). When it reached a particular level of maturity, a pull request was made and additional work went into it. The initial discussion happened for quite a while. Plus, my understanding is that it isnt the full Nep, but the core parts (but I haven't checked in a while). Ben Root
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion