On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Ralf Gommers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Ralf Gommers <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Charles R Harris >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ralf, >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Ralf Gommers >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> It's been a little over 6 months since the release of 1.6.0 and the NA >>>> debate has quieted down, so I'd like to ask your opinion on the timing of >>>> 1.7.0. It looks to me like we have a healthy amount of bug fixes and small >>>> improvements, plus three larger chucks of work: >>>> >>>> - datetime >>>> - NA >>>> - Bento support >>>> >>>> My impression is that both datetime and NA are releasable, but should be >>>> labeled "tech preview" or something similar, because they may still see >>>> significant changes. Please correct me if I'm wrong. >>>> >>>> There's still some maintenance work to do and pull requests to merge, >>>> but a beta release by Christmas should be feasible. What do you all think? >>>> >>> >>> I'm now thinking that is too optimistic. There are a fair number of >>> tickets that need to be looked at, including some for einsum and the >>> iterator, and I think the number of pull requests needs to be reduced. How >>> about sometime in the beginning of January? >>> >> >> Yes, it certainly was. Besides the tickets and pull requests, we also need >> the support for MinGW 4.x that David is looking at. If that goes smoothly >> then the first week of January may be feasible, otherwise it'll have to be >> February (I'm traveling for most of Jan). Or someone else has to volunteer >> to be the release manager for this release. > > > There isn't really much progress here. Besides a few smaller issues that > still need attention, I think the MinGW 4.x issue is a blocker and needs to > be resolved. This can be done either by making it work, or deciding to stick > with 3.x. In the latter case numpy.datetime should be fixed somehow. > > For the next three weeks I'm traveling and won't be able to do any work on > numpy. I propose to keep master in a state that's (close to being) > releasable until the blocker issue is resolved and we can create a 1.7.x > branch. > > Ralf > > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
I think that my ticket 1973 (http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/1973) "Can not display a masked array containing np.NA values even if masked" that is due to the astype function not handling the NA object is also a blocker. Bruce _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
