On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Charles R Harris <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Ralf Gommers <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Pauli Virtanen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 01.05.2012 21:34, Ralf Gommers kirjoitti: >>> [clip] >>> > At this point it's probably good to look again at the problems we want >>> > to solve: >>> > 1. responsive user interface (must absolutely have) >>> >>> Now that it comes too late: with some luck, I've possibly hit on what >>> was ailing the Tracs (max_diff_bytes configured too large). Let's see if >>> things work better from now on... >> >> >> That's amazing - not only does it not give errors anymore, it's also an >> order of magnitude faster. >> > > So maybe we could just stick with trac. Performance was really the sticking > point. > > Chuck > > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
FWIW I'm pretty strongly in favor of GHI for NumPy/SciPy (I am going to get involved in NumPy dev eventually, promise). While warty in some of the places already mentioned, I have found it to be very low-friction and low-annoyance in my own dev process (nearing 1000 issues closed in the last year in pandas). But there are fewer cooks in the kitchen with pandas so perhaps this experience wouldn't be identical with NumPy. The biggest benefit I've seen is community involvement that you really wouldn't see if I were using a Trac or something else hosted elsewhere. Users are on GitHub and it for some reason gives people a feeling of engagement in the open source process that I don't see anywhere else. - Wes _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
