[Numpy-discussion] Where to discuss NEPs (was: Re: new NEP: np.AbstractArray and np.asabstractarray)

[Ralf Gommers]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 7:06 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk
> <m.h.vankerkwijk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Nathaniel,
> >
> > Overall, hugely in favour!  For detailed comments, it would be good to
> > have a link to a PR; could you put that up?
>
> Well, there's a PR here: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/10706
>
> But, this raises a question :-). (One which also came up here:
> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/10704#issuecomment-371684170)
>
> There are sensible two workflows we could use (or at least, two that I
> can think of):
>
> 1. We merge updates to the NEPs as we go, so that whatever's in the
> repo is the current draft. Anyone can go to the NEP webpage at
> http://numpy.org/neps (WIP, see #10702) to see the latest version of
> all NEPs, whether accepted, rejected, or in progress. Discussion
> happens on the mailing list, and line-by-line feedback can be done by
> quote-replying and commenting on individual lines. From time to time,
> the NEP author takes all the accumulated feedback, updates the
> document, and makes a new post to the list to let people know about
> the updated version.
>
> This is how python-dev handles PEPs.
>
> 2. We use Github itself to manage the review. The repo only contains
> "accepted" NEPs; draft NEPs are represented by open PRs, and rejected
> NEPs are represented by PRs that were closed-without-merging.
> Discussion uses Github's commenting/review tools, and happens in the
> PR itself.
>
> This is roughly how Rust handles their RFC process, for example:
> https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs
>
> Trying to do some hybrid version of these seems like it would be
> pretty painful, so we should pick one.
>
> Given that historically we've tried to use the mailing list for
> substantive features/planning discussions, and that our NEP process
> has been much closer to workflow 1 than workflow 2 (e.g., there are
> already a bunch of old NEPs already in the repo that are effectively
> rejected/withdrawn), I think we should maybe continue that way, and
> keep discussions here?
>
> So my suggestion is discussion should happen on the list, and NEP
> updates should be merged promptly, or just self-merged. Sound good?


Agreed that overall (1) is better than (2), rejected NEPs should be
visible. However there's no need for super-quick self-merge, and I think it
would be counter-productive.

Instead, just send a PR, leave it open for some discussion, and update for
detailed comments (as well as long in-depth discussions that only a couple
of people care about) in the Github UI and major ones on the list. Once
it's stabilized a bit, then merge with status "Draft" and update once in a
while. I think this is also much more in like with what python-dev does, I
have seen substantial discussion on Github and have not seen quick
self-merges.

Ralf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20180308/60e7ded4/attachment-0001.html>