On Mon, 2024-10-07 at 15:52 +0300, matti picus via NumPy-Discussion
wrote:
> It seems to me that we should only endorse SPECs that we ourselves
> implement, otherwise it is kind of "do as I say, not as I do". For
> instance, it would be strange to endorse SPEC0 but stay with NEP 29.
> If we are to
I second Matti's comments about the validity of endorsing things we don't
implement.
Also, personally I really dislike the keys to castle spec, because I'm
generally against having yearly check in reviews and such.
--- Rohit
From: Sebastian Berg
Sent: Monday
It seems to me that we should only endorse SPECs that we ourselves
implement, otherwise it is kind of "do as I say, not as I do". For
instance, it would be strange to endorse SPEC0 but stay with NEP 29.
If we are to endorse SPEC0 without changing our version end-of-life
timing, we should at least m
Hi all,
TL;DR: NumPy should endorse some or all of the new SPECs if we like
them. If you don't or do like them, please discuss, otherwise I
suspect we will propose and endorsing them soon and do it if a few core
maintainers agree.
---
The Scientific Python project has the SPEC process to write
