On Jun 23, 2012, at 4:23 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> What has been done in the past is that an intent to fork is announced some >> two weeks in advance so that people can weigh in on what needs to be done >> before the fork. The immediate fork was a bit hasty. Likewise, when I >> suggested going to the github issue tracking, I opened a discussion on >> needed tags, but voila, there it was with an incomplete set and no >> discussion. That to seemed hasty. > > I don't have a particular dog in this fight, but it seems like neither > creating the fork nor turning on issues are worth disagreeing to much > about. There's going to be a 1.7 fork sometime soon, and whether it > gets created now or after discussion seems mostly academic. Even if > there were changes that needed to go into both branches, git makes > that straightforward. Likewise github issues. Turning them on has > minimal cost, especially given that pull requests already go through > github, and gives another route for bug reporting and a way to > experiment with issues to inform the discussion.
Yes, this is exactly my perspective. Let's use the power of github and avoid discussions that don't need to happen and have more of them that do. -Travis _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
