[SciPy-Dev] Clarification: is the Extended Summary section optional?

[Vincent Davis]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:54 PM, David Goldsmith <d.l.goldsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Vincent Davis <vincent at vincentdavis.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> I just setup an account. vincentdavis
>> I assume I will find instruction but how does the review/commit of
>> updates work (in brief)
>
> Ah, good question, with a somewhat complicated answer, I'm afraid.  At a
> minimum, when a writer/editor feels that a docstring is "done," s/he
> "promotes" it to "Needs review" status.  In addition, since we feel that,
> very generally speaking, a "Needs review" docstring is in a more advanced
> state than whatever is in the current distribution, s/he also marks the
> docstring as "OK to apply Yes."  Then, eventually, two things happen: a
> release manager/worker comes along and merges "OK to apply Yes" docstrings
> into the source code, and a reviewer - different than the writer/editor(s)
> who worked on the docstring - comes along, reviews the docstring, and either
> promotes it to "Reviewed, needs proof" or demotes it to "Reviewed, needs
> work."
>
> Here is where it gets a little "complicated."  The review effort, which
> _NumPy_ is largely ready for, is stalled pending implementation of
> enhancements to the Wiki to support a dual review system: in the past,
> parties have found reviewed and proofed, i.e., "finalized" docstrings which
> are either pretty unclear, or were pretty clear but had technical
> deficiencies.  Consequently, we've been wanting to implement a system
> whereby each docstring must pass both a technical and a "presentation"
> review, but, as I said, the Wiki presently doesn't support this.  Joe
> Harrington and myself have been trying to line up the labor to get this
> done, so far unsuccessfully.  I think there may soon be an announcement
> concerning this...  (The delay in the review process is at least in part why
> we've opted to go ahead and start incorporating "unfinalized" docstrings
> into the source.)

As I am always interested in learning new things is there any help I
can offer in getting the wiki review feature implemented?

Thanks for the summary, this clears up a few of the question I had
after looking over things.

Vincent

>
> Welcome aboard, and thanks!
>
> DG
>>
>> Thanks
>> Vincent
>>
>> 2010/6/2 Stéfan van der Walt <stefan at sun.ac.za>:
>> > On 2 June 2010 16:03, Benjamin Root <ben.root at ou.edu> wrote:
>> >> You may have my keyboard!
>> >>
>> >> Seriously, though, I just registered a username on the wiki
>> >> (weathergod) and
>> >> I would like to help out with documentation.
>> >
>> > Added, and welcome!
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > Stéfan
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > SciPy-Dev mailing list
>> > SciPy-Dev at scipy.org
>> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> SciPy-Dev mailing list
>> SciPy-Dev at scipy.org
>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Mathematician: noun, someone who disavows certainty when their uncertainty
> set is non-empty, even if that set has measure zero.
>
> Hope: noun, that delusive spirit which escaped Pandora's jar and, with her
> lies, prevents mankind from committing a general suicide.  (As interpreted
> by Robert Graves)
>
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>
>