Skip to content
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

Clarify distinction between SPEC and implementation #247

Open
tupui opened this issue Jul 17, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

Clarify distinction between SPEC and implementation #247

tupui opened this issue Jul 17, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request SPEC Discussion

Comments

@tupui
Copy link
Member

tupui commented Jul 17, 2023

There is a lot of discussions in projects around what it means to endorse vs what is written on each SPEC.

To help clarify things, I propose that we create an optional section on the SPECs to show our suggestion of implementation. E.g. for SPEC0 and SPEC4, we could add the section Suggested implementation and describe what we currently have with the calendar and lazy loading package.

@tupui tupui added enhancement New feature or request SPEC Discussion labels Jul 17, 2023
@stefanv
Copy link
Member

stefanv commented Jul 17, 2023

Thanks for the suggestion, Pamphile. Can you expand a bit on what you think this section would contain? In my mind, the SPEC was the suggestion, but perhaps there's a further clarification needed.

I think we also agreed to make it more obvious what endorsement means, by adding a hover (and perhaps icon) to the SPEC list.

@jarrodmillman
Copy link
Member

jarrodmillman commented Jul 18, 2023

The SPECs already have two sections where this information should go:

### Core Project Endorsement

<!--
Discuss what it means for a core project to endorse this SPEC.
-->

### Ecosystem Adoption

<!--
Discuss what it means for a project to adopt this SPEC.
-->

We haven't completed these sections for the existing SPECs. It would be great if you (or someone else) wanted to make a PR to update the existing SPECs with this information. We should also discuss this at the next SPEC committee call, which we will send out a poll to schedule later today.

@tupui
Copy link
Member Author

tupui commented Jul 18, 2023

Yep, I am all for making a call 😃

I had a look and seems like these sections are not really filled for the current SPECs (0, 1, 4).

I think these sections are good and should be moved to the top, after the SPEC itself. What I would move to a specific section, would be the "implementation" part. This should make it clear that this is just an example.

Basically I would propose the following structure:

### Description

<!--
The SPEC itself.
-->

### Core Project Endorsement

<!--
Discuss what it means for a core project to endorse this SPEC.
-->

### Ecosystem Adoption

<!--
Discuss what it means for a project to adopt this SPEC.
-->

### Suggested implementation

<!--
An generic implementation which follows the SPEC
-->

Basically with recent discussions we need to be clearer on what is "required" and what is optional. E.g. for SPEC0 basically what we want (since we said NEP29 is valid) is that project have a deprecation policy for deps/Python. Up to us to add more constrains such as minimal support of e.g. 2 years if you want to be "compliant". This information would go into the Core Project Endorsement section and Ecosystem Adoption would list the NEP29 as NumPy's implementation.

jarrodmillman added a commit to jarrodmillman/specs that referenced this issue Aug 2, 2023
As discussed in the last steering committee meeting.
See scientific-python#247.
jarrodmillman added a commit to jarrodmillman/specs that referenced this issue Aug 2, 2023
As discussed in the last steering committee meeting.
See scientific-python#247.
jarrodmillman added a commit to jarrodmillman/specs that referenced this issue Aug 2, 2023
As discussed in the last steering committee meeting.
See scientific-python#247.
jarrodmillman added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 3, 2023
As discussed in the last steering committee meeting. See #247.

---------

Co-authored-by: pre-commit-ci[bot] <66853113+pre-commit-ci[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Stefan van der Walt <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request SPEC Discussion
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants