Hi Travis On 2015-09-21 23:29:12, Travis Oliphant <tra...@continuum.io> wrote: > 1) nobody believes that the community should be forced to adopt numba as > part of ufunc core yet --- but this could happen someday just as Cython is > now being adopted but was proposed 8 years ago that it "could be adopted" > That's a red-hearing.
Yes, I'd like to clarify: I was not against including any specific technology in NumPy. I was highlighting that there may be different motivations for members of the general community and those working for, say, Continuum, to get certain features adopted. > 2) I have stated that breaking the ABI is of little consequence because > of conda as well as other tools. I still believe that. This has nothing > to do with any benefit Continuum might or might not receive because of > conda. Everyone else who wants to make a conda-based distribution also > benefits (Cloudera, Microsoft, Intel, ...) or use conda also benefits. > I don't think the community realizes the damange that is done with FUD like > this. There are real implications. It halts progress, creates confusion, > and I think ultimately damages the community. This is an old argument, and the reason why we have extensive measures in place to guard against ABI breakage. But, reading what you wrote above, I would like to understand better what FUD you are referring to, because I, rightly or wrongly, believe there is a real concern here that is being glossed over. > I don't see how. None of these have been proposed for integrating into > NumPy. I don't see how integrating numba into NumPy benefits Continuum > at all. It's much easier for us to keep it separate. At this point > Continuum doesn't have an opinion about integrating DyND into NumPy or > not. I think that touches, tangentially at least, on the problem. If an employee of Continuum were steering NumPy, and the company developed an opinion on those integrations, would such a person not feel compelled to toe the company line? (Whether the company is Continuum or another is besides the point—I am only trying to understand the dynamics of working for a company and leading an open source project that closely interacts with their producs.) > I know that you were responding to specific question by Brian as to how > their could be a conflict of interest for Continuum and NumPy development. > I don't think this is a useful conversation --- we could dream up all > kinds of conflicts of interest for BIDS and NumPy too (e.g. perhaps BIDS > really wants Spark to take over and for NumPy to have special connections > to Spark). Are we to not allow anyone at BIDS to participate in the > steering council because of their other interests? I guess that's an interesting example, but BIDS (which sits inside a university and is funded primarily by foundations) has no financial, and very few other, incentives to do so. > But remember, the original point is whether or not someone from Continuum > (or I presume any company and not just singling out Continuum for special > treatment) should be on the steering council. Are you really arguing > that they shouldn't because there are other projects Continuum is working > on that have some overlap with NumPy. I really hope you don't actually > believe that. Here's what I'm trying to say (and I apologise for ruffling feathers in the process): There are concerns amongst members of the community that (will) arise when strong players from industry try / hint at exerting (some) executive control over NumPy. We can say that these concerns amount to spreading FUD, that they are uninformed, unrealistic, etc., but ultimately they are still out there, and until they are discussed and addressed, I find it hard to see how we can move forward with ease. Stéfan _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
