Hi, Thank you for your gracious email.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Travis Oliphant <oliph...@enthought.com> wrote: > It is a shame that Nathaniel and perhaps Matthew do not feel like their > voice was heard. I wish I could have participated more fully in some of > the discussions. I don't know if I could have really helped, but I would > have liked to have tried to perhaps work alongside Mark to integrate some of > the other ideas that had been expressed during the discussion. > Unfortunately, I was traveling in NYC most of the time that Mark was > working on this project and did not get a chance to interact with him as > much as I would have liked. > My view is that we didn't get quite to where I thought we would get, nor > where I think we could be. I think Nathaniel and Matthew provided very > specific feedback that was helpful in understanding other perspectives of a > difficult problem. In particular, I really wanted bit-patterns > implemented. However, I also understand that Mark did quite a bit of work > and altered his original designs quite a bit in response to community > feedback. I wasn't a major part of the pull request discussion, nor did I > merge the changes, but I support Charles if he reviewed the code and felt > like it was the right thing to do. I likely would have done the same thing > rather than let Mark Wiebe's work languish. > Merging Mark's code does not mean there is not more work to be done, but it > is consistent with the reality that currently development on NumPy happens > when people have the time to do it. I have not seen anything to convince > me that there is not still time to make specific API changes that address > some of the concerns. > Perhaps, Nathaniel and or Matthew could summarize their concerns again and > if desired submit a pull request to revert the changes. However, there is > a definite bias against removing working code unless the arguments are very > strong and receive a lot of support from others. Honestly - I am not sure whether there is any interest now, in the arguments we made before. If there is, who is interested? I mean, past politeness. I wasn't trying to restart that discussion, because I didn't know what good it could do. At first I was hoping that we could ask whether there was a better way of dealing with disagreements like this. Later it seemed to me that the atmosphere was getting bad, and I wanted to say that because I thought it was important. > Thank you for continuing to voice your opinions even when it may feel that > the tide is against you. My view is that we only learn from people who > disagree with us. Thank you for saying that. I hope that y'all will tell me if I am making it harder for you to disagree, and I am sorry if I did so here. Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion