proposal for an exp repository

[Dan Kortschak]

I have been thinking more seriously about implementing a GPU-backed
matrix type (I have been thinking about this on and off for the past
few years).

There is some work that I need to do this that will go into
gonum.org/v1/gonum and is currently in review, but the actual meat of
the addition should not go there since we cannot test it on travis at
least in the short term (probably ever).

So it should go in its own repo, but during development it is probably
worth putting it (and other things?) in an experimental repo.

What do people think about adding an exp repo?

Dan

[Vladimír Chalupecký]

I think I would welcome that. If it had been available, I would have used it for the work on the iterative and ode packages. That way the code would not have been hidden away in my personal repository. Such repository could also give a rough overview of what is being worked on.

[Dan Kortschak]

This now exists.

https://github.com/gonum/exp

[Vladimír Chalupecký]

Is it a free, review-less territory or are there any mild rules?

[Dan Kortschak]

I think we can do this on a per package hierarchy basis.

The rules that I think would work would be that a package needs a PR to
be brought into existence and the PR should say the kind of development
that is going to be happening (i.e. how relaxed the reviews should be).

I would prefer that there is minimal review-free code introduction, but
for some cases it may well make sense. The initial PR would include
adding a README.md explaining the intention of the package(s) and
outlining the development plan.

How does that sound?

[Vladimír Chalupecký]

SGTM

[Brendan Tracey]

SGTM

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gonum-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gonum-dev+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Sebastien Binet]

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Brendan Tracey <tracey....@gmail.com> wrote:

SGTM

On Jul 31, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Vladimír Chalupecký <vladimir....@gmail.com> wrote:

SGTM

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 3:51:48 AM UTC+2, kortschak wrote:

I think we can do this on a per package hierarchy basis.

The rules that I think would work would be that a package needs a PR to
be brought into existence and the PR should say the kind of development
that is going to be happening (i.e. how relaxed the reviews should be).

I would prefer that there is minimal review-free code introduction, but
for some cases it may well make sense. The initial PR would include
adding a README.md explaining the intention of the package(s) and
outlining the development plan.

How does that sound?

SGTM too.

-s