-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 45
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
SciPy endorsement for SPEC-1 #245
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thanks Pamphile.
mixed up the different SPEC up for approval
Sorry, I meant to approve SciPy's endorsement of SPECs 0 and 4 instead. For this one, I'd be a lot happier with approving it if it did either use |
Thanks, Ralf. I agree that aliasing distracts from the SPEC 1 story, so I've filed #250 to remove any mentions of |
Thanks for removing the aliasing, that removes some explanation nightmares for those of us dealing with over-aliased user code. |
I merged the PR, is everyone ok with moving this one? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good with me to merge this now, thanks all!
Great, thanks! Here we go then 🚀 |
The discussion on SciPy's mailing list was opened here: https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/thread/46PKNGHVQKOKDECMIML7PZCHLKJUKBTA/
Lazy consensus applying, that means we are endorsing. I will send another email to SciPy's list with a week's additional RFC.