[SciPy-dev] Scipy workflow (and not tools).

[Nathan Bell]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've split this off into a new thread because I felt there were two
> issues in Stefan's original thread.
>
> This is in the hope that we can stimulate discussion on the workflow
> (as opposed to - say - which version control system to use, or which
> bugtracker).
>
> I would be very interested to see if we can come to a consensus on the
> important discussion of whether to introduce fairly formal code review
> into the scipy workflow.  I've appended the key piece of discussion
> below.
>


I'd summarize my position with the following points:
- SciPy components should have one or more maintainers
- "Maintainer" means anyone who has an interest in that particular component
- Maintainers should be notified by the bugtracker when problems arise

My hope is that by resolving more problems at lower levels we can
partially relieve the burden on release managers and the like.  I see
the introduction of a new VCS/bugtracker as mainly for the benefit of
these people, whose responsibilities require more scalability.  So,
I'm definitely not opposed to introducing these changes and
experimenting with alternatives a bit.  However, I think we need a
distributed-responsibility system *as much if not more* than a DVCS or
a new bug tracker.

-- 
Nathan Bell wnbell at gmail.com
http://graphics.cs.uiuc.edu/~wnbell/