Hi Michael,

Thanks for reading the MEP! Responses below:

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Michael Droettboom <mdroe@stsci.edu> wrote:
On 12/10/2012 05:18 PM, Tony Yu wrote:
MEP 12 outlines the reorganization of the example gallery and subsequent clean up of the examples:


In my opinion, there are two open questions in the MEP:

    * Section names (may seem trivial to some, but I think it's really important)
    * Guidelines for cleaning up examples

Some thoughts:

You suggest keeping the old examples around in some dark corner.  Is there some advantage you envision for doing this?  I'd just as soon remove them.  Note that the documentation on the website is now versioned, so the examples that shipped with 1.2.0 will remain live and unchanged indefinitely.  If a user wants the older gallery it should just be there under matplotlib.org/1.2.

I noted that old examples could either be kept in a dark corner, or deleted. I'm actually strongly in favor of deleting, especially since the website is versioned (nice---I didn't know this). I was afraid some people would be resistant to deleting, but I'm happy to hear that you prefer it. I'll make this preference clearer in the MEP.

As for the categories/structure, I think I prefer your "suggested alternative" -- to have narrowly defined categories rather than a big "plotting" directory.

I agree that "plotting" is too general. My only hesitation with the finer classification of plots is that it's really hard to come up with categories that work; my current suggestions in the MEP aren't really ideal. Nevertheless, I'm sure we can all put our heads together to come up with categories that make sense...

For "cleanup guidelines", perhaps it is worth mentioning that some of the examples are really unit tests -- they just exercise some esoteric feature that's only of interest to developers.  These should be converted into unit tests from the framework and probably deleted altogether as gallery examples.


Maybe we should also add that examples should be renamed when appropriate: there are things like "image_demo.py" and "image_demo2.py".  The "2" doesn't really help to describe what's in there.

I definitely agree. 

I'm not sure I agree with "one figure per example" as a goal -- it is sometimes nice to have a number of features demonstrated by a single example file, and cramming them all into multiple axes isn't always the best approach.  I think we can take that on a case-by-case basis.

I was hesitant to add this initially. I agree it's sometimes a good idea to have multiple figures. I'd still like to have this as a suggestion---I'll try to make that a little clearer in the MEP.
I agree with Phil that we might as well just iterate this on master.  I would envision one or two PRs to get the general infrastructure in place, and then lots of PRs from multiple authors as we work on whipping the examples into shape.

Sounds good.