DOC: remove doc/seps/technology-preview.rst #2766

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 26, 2013

Projects

None yet

5 participants

@argriffing
Contributor

Clean up the docs a bit. See #2762.

@josef-pkt
Member

no objection here
should we write something to the dev mailing list? "No SEPS are currently used."

(I could write a "governance in scipy" message. :) with the message "works pretty well"

@rgommers
Member

can we hold off on that for a few days? @ EuroScipy is a good time to discuss things like governance in person.

@matthew-brett
Contributor

I think Josef was joking ...

As the 'governance' person though - for the record - it does look as though scipy is working pretty well as an organization at the moment. And maybe that means it's a good time to nail down a gentle governance model that can protect that for the future.

@rgommers
Member

I know he was joking in the last sentence. The first one is serious though, and may trigger the second one.

I agree with your take on things @matthew-brett, some nailing down may be in order.

@josef-pkt
Member

@rgommers no problem with me,
I would have just written a rough description, that github issues and PRs work like SEPs only with more code details and not all upfront.

@matthew-brett joking only with the title. But as a status update (de-facto, not de-jure) (from my perspective as semi-retired scipy developer)
I think a few items could be clarified in a discussion, but overall the "governance" depends a lot on the number of developers involved and their "personalities" and cannot be much mailed (oops typo, nailed) down IMO.

@matthew-brett
Contributor

Aha - the discussion begins!

@josef-pkt
Member

I better switch to my statsmodels tabs and open windows.
(I think there were some PRs there that I was supposed to review :)
.... (hearing a tab close)

@argriffing
Contributor

I'll defer to people with more organizational gravitas to propose removing nontechnical content.

@argriffing argriffing closed this Aug 23, 2013
@rgommers
Member

@argriffing I think we can still merge this soon, no problem. Cleaning up docs/website/stuff-like-this is quite useful.

@argriffing
Contributor

OK re-opening. Maybe these meta issues like the development of processes of development of scipy have been discussed at euro-scipy?

@argriffing argriffing reopened this Aug 25, 2013
@rgommers
Member

After a few beers I'm afraid the current model has been classified as a tyranny:)

More seriously, we did discuss a roadmap to 1.0 in some detail. I'll try to post something coherent soon. Processes were not discussed in as much detail, but I think we can pick up that discussion also.

@rgommers
Member

OK going to merge this PR, because removing this file is the only sensible thing to do. It doesn't contain anything useful; there never was a scipy.preview but instead scikits were created.

@rgommers rgommers merged commit cec98d7 into scipy:master Aug 26, 2013

1 check passed

default The Travis CI build passed
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment