[SciPy-Dev] cKDTree

[Pauli Virtanen]

Hi,

Thu, 08 Sep 2016 23:12:54 +0200, Sylvain Corlay kirjoitti:
[clip]
> On the subject of the use of a faster flavor of KdTree as I was
> proposing, I was only gauging interest. The long discussion on DE on 
> this specific thread is mostly coincidental. My main goal was to use it
> as an example for the question of the scope - also to ask about the 
> "big split" idea. If there was to be a split, a potential 
> scipy-incubator organization with proposals for inclusion as 
> scipy subprojects would make sense then... If there was to be a split, 
> a potential scipy-incubator organization with proposals for inclusion 
> as scipy subprojects would make sense then...

Now that we're still derailed:

Several years back, there was a scipy.sandbox package which was nominally 
aligned with things intended for inclusion, but it was scrapped in the 
end: http://blog.jarrodmillman.com/2007/12/end-of-scipy-sandbox.html
Some of these did end up as scipy subpackages, but many also were 
scrapped or turned up into separate projects.

This was of course before Git/Github --- nowadays I think the role is 
mainly served by PRs, and for more complicated stuff, separate ad-hoc 
repositories plus issue tickets. Of course, scipy.sandbox had also 
overlap with completely separate projects.

With the "staging area", the main question is that is the amount of 
significant new features proposed such that there should be a separate 
"staging area", aside from PRs etc.  Or, would such staging area 
encourage their creation?  Or would it be useful for creating completely 
new projects?  It's not really clear to me that this is the case.

In a more decentralized "big split" approach, "Scipy" probably would 
mainly stand as some sort an umbrella organization for more or less 
separate projects.  Does such central authority need to exist, apart from 
the sense of maintaining the specific projects?  Is it better in some 
sense than the completely decentralized scikit approach?

-- 
Pauli Virtanen