[SciPy-dev] The future of SciPy and its development infrastructure

[jason-sage at creativetrax.com]

Perry Greenfield wrote:
>
> 2) While I understand the desire to increase the quality of commits to  
> scipy by putting in a more formal process, like making sure code is  
> reviewed, tests are present, and documentation is provided, I too,  
> like Travis, worry that this may inhibit many useful contributions.  
> Rather than act as a barrier, why not just have some sort of "seal of  
> approval" for things that have gone through that process. 


Lots of projects have -stable and -dev branches.  The -stable branch for 
scipy could involve the "seal of approval" with review, doctests, etc.  
The -dev branch could be the unreviewed code.  This lets Travis commit 
to something and get his patches out there, but also clearly defines a 
line in the sand between reviewed and unreviewed code.  I realize that 
scipy already has something of -dev and -stable branches, based on 
releases.  Maybe this idea boils down to: only reviewed code is allowed 
in an official release, but there is a -dev branch with all code 
available as well.  As code is reviewed, it is moved into the -stable 
branch and released in the next release.

In reality, using a DVCS, each developer's copy of the repository then 
becomes a private -dev branch that can be pulled from.  Developers get 
to commit and publish unreviewed changes, and someone (the release 
manager) can pull in to -stable the changes that are reviewed.  The 
release manager could also pull all changes from developer repositories 
into an official -dev branch if you wanted to have a central clearing 
house for what everyone is working on.

Jason

--
Jason Grout