All tests pass with Python 2.6 (2.6.7 release).
All tests pass with Python 2.7 (snapshot of 2.7 branch, revision 3623c3e6c049).
All tests pass with Python 3.1 (3.1.4 release).
4 failures with Python 3.2 (snapshot of 3.2 branch, revision 0a4a6f98bd8e).
Failures with Python 3.2:
===
We are happy to announce the first release candidate for Cython 0.16,
you can grab it from here: http://wiki.cython.org/ReleaseNotes-0.16
Since the beta last month several issues have been fixed, including
the NumPy array attribute access deprecation, which are now rewritten
to use the NumPy macro
On 31 March 2012 17:15, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 31.03.2012 11:31:
>> On 31 March 2012 10:14, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> mark florisson, 30.03.2012 19:24:
The release build looks good now, I'm thinking of pushing a second and
final beta out there tomorrow. If anyone wants to
mark florisson, 31.03.2012 11:31:
> On 31 March 2012 10:14, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> mark florisson, 30.03.2012 19:24:
>>> The release build looks good now, I'm thinking of pushing a second and
>>> final beta out there tomorrow. If anyone wants to get something in,
>>> now is the time to raise voice
On 31 March 2012 10:14, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 30.03.2012 19:24:
>> The release build looks good now, I'm thinking of pushing a second and
>> final beta out there tomorrow. If anyone wants to get something in,
>> now is the time to raise voice.
>
> Note that Dag's NumPy specialisat
mark florisson, 30.03.2012 19:24:
> The release build looks good now, I'm thinking of pushing a second and
> final beta out there tomorrow. If anyone wants to get something in,
> now is the time to raise voice.
Note that Dag's NumPy specialisation broke the Sage build by introducing a
compiler cra
2012/3/30 Robert Bradshaw :
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:24 AM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>
>> The release build looks good now, I'm thinking of pushing a second and
>> final beta out there tomorrow. If anyone wants to get something in,
>> now is the time to raise voice.
>
> Excellent. I personally
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:24 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
> The release build looks good now, I'm thinking of pushing a second and
> final beta out there tomorrow. If anyone wants to get something in,
> now is the time to raise voice.
Excellent. I personally don't know of anything that can't wait
On 27 March 2012 12:58, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 27.03.2012 13:20:
>> I tested the release in my own branch and jenkins was blue, but
>> the release build seems to disagree.
>
> The release (and master) branch is tested against the "-ext" builds of
> CPython, which have some external
mark florisson, 27.03.2012 13:20:
> I tested the release in my own branch and jenkins was blue, but
> the release build seems to disagree.
The release (and master) branch is tested against the "-ext" builds of
CPython, which have some external packages installed, including NumPy. You
have to chang
On 27 March 2012 11:57, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2012/2/27 Sébastien Sablé Sablé :
>> Great, thanks!
>>
>>
>> 2012/2/25 mark florisson
>>>
>>> 2012/2/24 Sébastien Sablé Sablé :
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > could you please also look at incorporating the following patch before
>>> > releasing 0.16? (if it
2012/2/27 Sébastien Sablé Sablé :
> Great, thanks!
>
>
> 2012/2/25 mark florisson
>>
>> 2012/2/24 Sébastien Sablé Sablé :
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > could you please also look at incorporating the following patch before
>> > releasing 0.16? (if it has not already been merged)
>> >
>> > https://github.com/
Great, thanks!
2012/2/25 mark florisson
> 2012/2/24 Sébastien Sablé Sablé :
> > Hi,
> >
> > could you please also look at incorporating the following patch before
> > releasing 0.16? (if it has not already been merged)
> >
> > https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/67
> >
> > It has been more or
2012/2/24 Sébastien Sablé Sablé :
> Hi,
>
> could you please also look at incorporating the following patch before
> releasing 0.16? (if it has not already been merged)
>
> https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/67
>
> It has been more or less validated, but a test case is needed.
>
> This patch mak
Hi,
could you please also look at incorporating the following patch before
releasing 0.16? (if it has not already been merged)
https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/67
It has been more or less validated, but a test case is needed.
This patch makes using C++ templates much more convenient with C
On 23 February 2012 15:43, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 23.02.2012 09:38:
>> On 23 February 2012 08:36, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>>> 2012/2/23 mark florisson:
On 23 February 2012 08:30, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> We can also fix this ticket before release
> http://trac.cython.org/cy
mark florisson, 23.02.2012 09:38:
> On 23 February 2012 08:36, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> 2012/2/23 mark florisson:
>>> On 23 February 2012 08:30, Vitja Makarov wrote:
We can also fix this ticket before release
http://trac.cython.org/cython_trac/ticket/761
>>>
>>> Good idea. I think the tick
2012/2/23 mark florisson :
> On 23 February 2012 08:36, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> 2012/2/23 mark florisson :
>>> On 23 February 2012 08:30, Vitja Makarov wrote:
2012/2/20 Vitja Makarov :
> 2012/2/20 mark florisson :
>> On 19 February 2012 10:16, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>>> 2012/2/15
On 23 February 2012 08:36, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2012/2/23 mark florisson :
>> On 23 February 2012 08:30, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>>> 2012/2/20 Vitja Makarov :
2012/2/20 mark florisson :
> On 19 February 2012 10:16, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> 2012/2/15 mark florisson :
>>> On 15 Febr
2012/2/23 Vitja Makarov :
> 2012/2/23 mark florisson :
>> On 23 February 2012 08:30, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>>> 2012/2/20 Vitja Makarov :
2012/2/20 mark florisson :
> On 19 February 2012 10:16, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> 2012/2/15 mark florisson :
>>> On 15 February 2012 15:45, mark f
2012/2/23 mark florisson :
> On 23 February 2012 08:30, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> 2012/2/20 Vitja Makarov :
>>> 2012/2/20 mark florisson :
On 19 February 2012 10:16, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2012/2/15 mark florisson :
>> On 15 February 2012 15:45, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>> O
On 23 February 2012 08:30, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2012/2/20 Vitja Makarov :
>> 2012/2/20 mark florisson :
>>> On 19 February 2012 10:16, Vitja Makarov wrote:
2012/2/15 mark florisson :
> On 15 February 2012 15:45, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 14 February 2012 21:33, Robert Bra
2012/2/20 Vitja Makarov :
> 2012/2/20 mark florisson :
>> On 19 February 2012 10:16, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>>> 2012/2/15 mark florisson :
On 15 February 2012 15:45, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 14 February 2012 21:33, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:09
2012/2/20 mark florisson :
> On 19 February 2012 10:16, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> 2012/2/15 mark florisson :
>>> On 15 February 2012 15:45, mark florisson wrote:
On 14 February 2012 21:33, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:09 PM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>>
On 19 February 2012 10:16, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2012/2/15 mark florisson :
>> On 15 February 2012 15:45, mark florisson wrote:
>>> On 14 February 2012 21:33, Robert Bradshaw
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:09 PM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 14 February 2012 17:19, Robert Br
On 19 February 2012 10:16, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2012/2/15 mark florisson :
>> On 15 February 2012 15:45, mark florisson wrote:
>>> On 14 February 2012 21:33, Robert Bradshaw
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:09 PM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 14 February 2012 17:19, Robert Br
2012/2/15 mark florisson :
> On 15 February 2012 15:45, mark florisson wrote:
>> On 14 February 2012 21:33, Robert Bradshaw
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:09 PM, mark florisson
>>> wrote:
On 14 February 2012 17:19, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:49 A
On 15 February 2012 15:45, mark florisson wrote:
> On 14 February 2012 21:33, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:09 PM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>> On 14 February 2012 17:19, Robert Bradshaw
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:49 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
>
On 14 February 2012 21:33, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:09 PM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 14 February 2012 17:19, Robert Bradshaw
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:49 AM, mark florisson
>>> wrote:
On 14 February 2012 07:07, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:09 PM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 14 February 2012 17:19, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:49 AM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>> On 14 February 2012 07:07, Robert Bradshaw
>>> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Vitja Makarov
wrote
On 14 February 2012 17:19, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:49 AM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 14 February 2012 07:07, Robert Bradshaw
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Vitja Makarov
>>> wrote:
2012/2/12 Vitja Makarov :
> 2012/2/11 Robert Bradshaw :
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:49 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 14 February 2012 07:07, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Vitja Makarov
>> wrote:
>>> 2012/2/12 Vitja Makarov :
2012/2/11 Robert Bradshaw :
> All of Sage passes except for one test:
>
> sag
On 14 February 2012 07:07, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Vitja Makarov
> wrote:
>> 2012/2/12 Vitja Makarov :
>>> 2012/2/11 Robert Bradshaw :
All of Sage passes except for one test:
sage -t devel/sage/sage/misc/sageinspect.py
*
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2012/2/12 Vitja Makarov :
>> 2012/2/11 Robert Bradshaw :
>>> All of Sage passes except for one test:
>>>
>>> sage -t devel/sage/sage/misc/sageinspect.py
>>> **
>>> File
>>
2012/2/12 Vitja Makarov :
> 2012/2/11 Robert Bradshaw :
>> All of Sage passes except for one test:
>>
>> sage -t devel/sage/sage/misc/sageinspect.py
>> **
>> File
>> "/levi/scratch/robertwb/hudson/sage-4.8/devel/sage-main/sage/mi
2012/2/11 Robert Bradshaw :
> All of Sage passes except for one test:
>
> sage -t devel/sage/sage/misc/sageinspect.py
> **
> File
> "/levi/scratch/robertwb/hudson/sage-4.8/devel/sage-main/sage/misc/sageinspect.py",
> line 970:
>
All of Sage passes except for one test:
sage -t devel/sage/sage/misc/sageinspect.py
**
File
"/levi/scratch/robertwb/hudson/sage-4.8/devel/sage-main/sage/misc/sageinspect.py",
line 970:
sage: sage_getargspec(bernstein_polynom
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2012/1/31 Robert Bradshaw :
>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Vitja Makarov
>> wrote:
>>> 2012/1/26 Jason Grout :
On 1/25/12 11:39 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> install
>
> https://sage.math.washington.edu:8091/hudso
Vitja Makarov, 04.02.2012 19:49:
>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>>> So I found one of the problems. Here is minimal cython example:
>>>
>>> def foo(values):
>>>return (0,)*len(values)
>>> foo([1,2,3])
>>>
>>> len(values) somehow is passed as an integer to PyObject_Mult
2012/1/31 Robert Bradshaw :
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Vitja Makarov
> wrote:
>> 2012/1/26 Jason Grout :
>>> On 1/25/12 11:39 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
install
https://sage.math.washington.edu:8091/hudson/view/ext-libs/job/sage-build/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/cytho
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2012/1/26 Jason Grout :
>> On 1/25/12 11:39 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> install
>>>
>>> https://sage.math.washington.edu:8091/hudson/view/ext-libs/job/sage-build/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/cython-devel.spkg
>>> by downloading it and
2012/1/26 Jason Grout :
> On 1/25/12 11:39 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> install
>>
>> https://sage.math.washington.edu:8091/hudson/view/ext-libs/job/sage-build/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/cython-devel.spkg
>> by downloading it and running "sage -i cython-devel.spkg"
>
>
>
> In fact, you could
On 1/25/12 11:39 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
install
https://sage.math.washington.edu:8091/hudson/view/ext-libs/job/sage-build/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/cython-devel.spkg
by downloading it and running "sage -i cython-devel.spkg"
In fact, you could just do
sage -i
https://sage.math.washingt
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:17 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 25 January 2012 12:00, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> mark florisson, 25.01.2012 11:43:
>>> On 25 January 2012 01:27, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:27 AM, mark florisson wrote:
> It's been almost three months since w
On 25 January 2012 12:00, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 25.01.2012 11:43:
>> On 25 January 2012 01:27, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:27 AM, mark florisson wrote:
It's been almost three months since we talked about a 0.16 release, I
think it's quite ready.
mark florisson, 25.01.2012 11:43:
> On 25 January 2012 01:27, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:27 AM, mark florisson wrote:
>>> It's been almost three months since we talked about a 0.16 release, I
>>> think it's quite ready. It would already be a big release, it would be
>>> goo
On 25 January 2012 01:27, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:27 AM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> It's been almost three months since we talked about a 0.16 release, I
>> think it's quite ready. It would already be a big release, it would be
>> good to see how people like
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:27 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
> Hey,
>
> It's been almost three months since we talked about a 0.16 release, I
> think it's quite ready. It would already be a big release, it would be
> good to see how people like it, and to catch any issues etc before we
> pile on more fe
Hey,
It's been almost three months since we talked about a 0.16 release, I
think it's quite ready. It would already be a big release, it would be
good to see how people like it, and to catch any issues etc before we
pile on more features.
Mark
___
cytho
49 matches
Mail list logo
