Hi, On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:39 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > It's not *any* cost, this goes deep and wide, it's one of the basic >> >> > concepts of numpy that you want to rename. >> >> >> >> The proposal I last made was to change the default name to 'layout' >> >> after some period to be agreed - say - P - with suitable warning in >> >> the docstring up until that time, and after, and leave 'order' as an >> >> alias forever. >> > >> > >> > The above paragraph is simply incorrect. Your last proposal also >> > included >> > deprecation warnings and a future backwards compatibility break by >> > removing >> > 'order'. >> > >> > If you now say you're not proposing steps 3 and 4 anymore, then you're >> > back >> > to what I called option (2) - duplicate keywords forever. Which for me >> > is >> > undesirable, for reasons I already mentioned. >> >> You might not have read my follow-up proposing to drop steps 3 and 4 >> if you felt they were unacceptable. >> >> > P.S. being called short-sighted and damaging numpy by responding to a >> > proposal you now say you didn't make is pretty damn annoying. >> >> No, I did make that proposal, and in the spirit of negotiation and >> consensus, I subsequently modified my proposal, as I hope you'd expect >> in this situation. > > > You have had clear NOs to the various incarnations of your proposal from 3 > active developers of this community, not once but two or three times from > each of those developers. Furthermore you have got only a couple of +0.5s, > after 90 emails no one else seems to feel that this is a change we really > have to have this change. Therefore I don't expect another modification of > your proposal, I expect you to drop it.
OK - I think I have a better understanding of the 'model' now. > As another poster said, this thread has run its course. The technical issues > are clear, and apparently we're going to have to agree to disagree about the > seriousness of the confusion. Please please go and fix the docs in the way > you deem best, and leave it at that. And triple please not another > governance thread. The governance threads happen because of the lack of governance, as this thread shows. I don't agree that decisions should be taken like this (+1, -1, No!, Yes!). I think they should be taken by negotiation and agreement. You disagree, but on whose authority, I do not know, and we have no way of resolving that, because there is - no governance thread. >> I'm am honestly sorry that I offended you. > > > Thank you. I apologize as well if my tone of the last message was too > strong. Thank you in turn, that is generous of you, Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
