On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Oğuzhan Ünlü <cengoguzhanu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Nikolay, > > Thanks for pointing out that! It really helped. I think it looks better > and easier to review now. > > I appreciate any comment/feedback. My proposal is at > https://gist.github.com/oguzhanunlu/1f8bf3ffc6ac5c420dd1 > Regarding your schedule: - I would remove the parts related to benchmarks. There's no nice benchmark infrastructure in numpy itself at the moment (that's a separate GSoC idea), so the two times 1 week that you have are likely not enough to get something off the ground there. - The "implement a flexible interface" part will need some discussion, probably it makes sense to first draft a document (call it a NEP - Numpy Enhancement Proposal) that lays out the options and makes a proposal. - I wouldn't put "investigate accuracy differences" at the end. What if you find out there that you've been working on something for the whole summer that's not accurate enough? - The "researching possible options" I would do in the community bonding period - when the coding period starts you should have a fairly well-defined plan. - 3 weeks for implementing the interface looks optimistic. Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
