[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.13.3 released.

HI All, On behalf of the NumPy team, I am pleased to annouce the release of Numpy 1.13.3. This is a re-release of 1.13.2, which suffered from compatibility problems, see issue 9786 . It is a bugfix release for some problems found since 1.13.1. The most

[Numpy-discussion] Sustainability

Hi All, I and a number of others representing various open source projects under the NumFocus umbrella will be attending as meeting next Tuesday do discuss the problem of sustainability. In preparation for that meeting I would be interested in any ideas that the folks who follow this list may have

[Numpy-discussion] Deprecate zipf distribution?

Hi All, The current NumPy implementation of the truncated zipf distribution has several drawbacks. - Extremely poor performance when the parameter `a` is near 1. For instance, when `a = 1.01` a simple change in the implementation speeds things up by a factor of 1,657. When the param

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Github overview change

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Sebastian Berg wrote: > Hi all, > > probably silly, but is anyone else annoyed at not seeing comments > anymore in the github overview/start page? I stopped getting everything > as mails and had a (bad) habit of glancing at them which would spot at > least bigger

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy grant update

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hi all, > > I wanted to give everyone an update on what's going on with the NumPy > grant [1]. As you may have noticed, things have been moving a bit > slower than originally hoped -- unfortunately my health is improving > but has continu

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Sorting of an array row-by-row?

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Joseph Fox-Rabinovitz < jfoxrabinov...@gmail.com> wrote: > I do not think that there is any particular relationship between the > order of the keys and lexicographic order. The key order is just a > convention, which is clearly documented. I agree that it is a bit

Re: [Numpy-discussion] SciPy 1.0 released!

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > Hi all, > > We are extremely pleased to announce the release of SciPy 1.0, 16 years > after > version 0.1 saw the light of day. It has been a long, productive journey > to > get here, and we anticipate many more exciting new features and rel

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Is there a better way to write a stacked matrix multiplication

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Daniele Nicolodi wrote: > Hello, > > is there a better way to write the dot product between a stack of > matrices? In my case I need to compute > > y = A.T @ inv(B) @ A > > with A a 3x1 matrix and B a 3x3 matrix, N times, with N in the few > hundred thousands ra

[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.14 branch.

Hi All, I'd like to branch NumPy 1.14 soon. Before doing so, I'd like to make sure at a minimum that 1) Changes in array print formatting are done. 2) Proposed deprecations have been make. If there are other things that folks see as essential, now is the time to speak up. Chuckn ___

[Numpy-discussion] Proposal of timeline for dropping Python 2.7 support

Hi All, Thought I'd toss this out there. I'm tending towards better sooner than later in dropping Python 2.7 support as we are starting to run up against places where we would like to use Python 3 features. That is particularly true on Windows where the 2.7 compiler is really old and lacks C99 com

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.14 branch.

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I'd like to branch NumPy 1.14 soon. >> > > Sounds good. > > Be

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal of timeline for dropping Python 2.7 support

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 6:37 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Chris Barker > wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Charles R Harris < >> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> the timelin

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal of timeline for dropping Python 2.7 support

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Matthias Bussonnier < bussonniermatth...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Apologies if this mail appear out of thread I just subscribed to respond. > > > Yeah, agreed. I don't feel like this is incompatible with the spirit of > > python3statement.org, though looking

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal of timeline for dropping Python 2.7 support

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Fortunately we can wait until we're a bit closer before we have to > make any final decision on the version numbering :-) > > Right now though it would be good to start communicating to > users/downstreams about whatever our plans our thoug

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] Upcoming revision of the BLAS standard

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hi NumPy and SciPy developers, > > Apparently there is some work afoot to update the BLAS standard, with > a working document here: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DY4ImZT1coqri2382GusXgBTTTVdB > DvtD5I14QHp9OE/edit > > This seems

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal of timeline for dropping Python 2.7 support

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Peter Cock wrote: > Since Konrad Hinsen no longer follows the NumPy discussion list > for lack of time, he has not posted here - but he has commented > about this on Twitter and written up a good blog post: > > http://blog.khinsen.net/posts/2017/11/16/a-plea-for-

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Type annotations for NumPy

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Stephan Hoyer wrote: > There's been growing interest in supporting PEP-484 style type annotations > in NumPy: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/7370 > > This would allow NumPy users to add type-annotations to their code that > uses NumPy, which they could chec

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Matthew Rocklin > wrote: > >> How would the community handle the scipy.sparse matrix subclasses? These >> are still in common use. >> > > They're not going anywhere for quite a while (until the sparse nd

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Would be great to have structure, and especially a template - ideally, > the latter is enough for someone to create a NEP, i.e., has lots of > in-template documentation. > > One thing I'd recommend thinking a

[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.14 branch

Hi All, I plan to branch NumPy 1.14.x tomorrow, 08-12-1017. If anyone feels that there is a current PR that needs to be in, please comment. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/nump

[Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.14.x has been branch, master is open for 1.15 development.

Hi All, Just a heads up that NumPy 1.14.x has been branched. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.14.0rc1 release

Hi All, On behalf of the NumPy team, I am pleased to announce NumPy 1.14.0rc1. Numpy 1.14.0rc1 is the result of seven months of work and contains a large number of bug fixes and new features, along with several changes with potential compatibility issues. The major change that users will notice ar

Re: [Numpy-discussion] building numpy with python3.7

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Hannes Breytenbach wrote: > OK, thanks for the link to the issue. I'm not using virtual environments > - I built python3.7 (and 2.7) with the `make altinstall` method. I managed > to get the numpy build working on 3.7 by removing the > `random/mtrand/mtrand.c` fi

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Another grant update, & numpy job ad is up!

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hi all, > > Two exciting bits of news: > > 1) We just posted the announcement of a second grant to BIDS for > NumPy, this time from the Sloan Foundation: > > https://bids.berkeley.edu/news/bids-receives-sloan- > foundation-grant-contribute

Re: [Numpy-discussion] GSoC'18 participation

On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > Hi all, > > It's the time of the year again where projects start preparing for GSoC. > So I wanted to bring it up here. Last year I wrote: "in practice working on > NumPy is just far too hard for most GSoC students. Previous years we've > reg

[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.14.0 release

Hi All, On behalf of the NumPy team, I am pleased to announce NumPy 1.14.0. Numpy 1.14.0 is the result of seven months of work and contains a large number of bug fixes and new features, along with several changes with potential compatibility issues. The major change that users will notice are the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Understanding np.min behaviour with nan

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Andrew Nelson wrote: > > The same warning would have been issued from the same place in each of > the variations you tried. > > That's not the case, I tried with np.min([1, 2, 3, np.nan]) in a fresh > interpreter and no warning was raised. > > Furthermore on my wo

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.14.0 release

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 3:35 AM, Eric Wieser > wrote: > > Did recarrays change? I didn’t see anything in the release notes. > > > > Not directly, but structured arrays did, for which recarrays are really > just > > a thin and somewh

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.14.0 release

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 3:35 AM, Eric Wieser >> wrote: >> > Did recarrays change? I didn’t see anything i

Re: [Numpy-discussion] building numpy with python3.7

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Andras Deak wrote: > Hello, > > After failing with several attempts to build numpy on python 3.7.0a4, > the combo that worked with pip was > cython 0.28a0 (current master) > numpy 1.15.0.dev0 (current master) > in a fresh, clean venv. > Older cython (0.27.3 where

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of rint?

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:30 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for my confusion, but I noticed (as a result of the discussion > here [1]) that np.rint and the fallback C function [2] seem to round > to even. But - my impression was that C rint, by default, rounds down > [3]. Is numpy ri

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of rint?

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 6:41 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:30 AM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Sorry for my confusion, but I noticed (as a result of the discussion >> here [1]) that np.rint and the fallback C func

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of rint?

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi Chuck, > > Thanks for the replies, they are very helpful. > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 6:41 AM, Charles R Harris > > wrote

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of rint?

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 8:24 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > >> Hi Chuck, >> >> Thanks for the replies, they are very helpful. >> >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Charles R Harris >&g

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of rint?

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Matthew Brett > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Chuck, > >> > >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of rint?

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2

[Numpy-discussion] Hoop jumping, and other sports

Hi All, I was thinking about things to do to simplify the NumPy development process. One thing that came to mind was our use of prefixes on commits, BUG, TST, etc. Those prefixes were originally introduced by David Cournapeau when he was managing releases in order help him track commits that might

[Numpy-discussion] @xoviat

Anyone know what happened to xoviat? He seems to have been disappeared. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.14.1 released

Hi All, On behalf of the NumPy team, I am pleased to announce NumPy 1.14.1. This is a bugfix release for some problems reported following the 1.14.0 release. The major problems fixed are the following. - Problems with the new array printing, particularly the printing of complex values, Plea

[Numpy-discussion] 1.15 release manager

Hi All, Would any of the other NumPy developers be interested in making the 1.15 release? It isn't difficult, and I don't mind doing it, but it would be a good thing if more people became familiar with the process. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing lis

Re: [Numpy-discussion] New NEP: merging multiarray and umath

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 2:52 AM, Gregor Thalhammer < gregor.thalham...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > long time ago I wrote a wrapper to to use optimised and parallelized math > functions from Intels vector math library > geggo/uvml: Provide vectorized math function (MKL) for numpy >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] New NEP: merging multiarray and umath

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 2:52 AM, Gregor Thalhammer < > gregor.thalham...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> long time ago I wrote a wrapper to to use optimised and parallelized math

[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.14.2 release

Hi All, I'm looking to make a NumPy soonish, possibly at the beginning of next week. The only change planned is a fix for the printing problem that the astropy folks reported. The fix for that problem is also in master, so if you test against master you should be able check if the fix works for yo

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Where to discuss NEPs (was: Re: new NEP: np.AbstractArray and np.asabstractarray)

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:26 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 7:06 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk >> wrote: >> > Hi Nathaniel, >> > >> > Overall, hugely in favour! For detailed comments, it would be good to >> > have a li

[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.14.2 released

Hi All, I am pleased to announce the release of NumPy 1.14.2. This is a bugfix release for some bugs reported following the 1.14.1 release. The major problems dealt with are as follows. - Residual bugs in the new array printing functionality. - Regression resulting in a relocation problem w

[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.15 release schedule

Hi All, I'm thinking of branching NumPy in the middle/end of April. That is quicker than usual, but there don't seem to be any major changes proposed for the near future, we have merged a reasonable number of PRs, and a Python 3.7 compatible release of Cython looks to be forthcoming. An early rele

Re: [Numpy-discussion] New NEP: merging multiarray and umath

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 1:25 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hi all, > > Well, this is something that we've discussed for a while and I think > generally has consensus already, but I figured I'd write it down > anyway to make sure. > > There's a rendered version here: > https://github.com/njsmith/num

Re: [Numpy-discussion] New NEP: merging multiarray and umath

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Mar 12, 2018 12:02, "Charles R Harris" > wrote: > > > If we accept this NEP, I'd like to get it done soon, preferably and the > next few months, so that it is finished before we drop Python 2.7 support

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP sprint: 21 and 22 March

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:14 AM, Jaime Fernández del Río < jaime.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > I will not be joining you for this sprint, but will be in the Bay Area > from May 12th to May 25th, and wouldn't mind spending a day visiting you. > > If it works for you and anyone else want to join we could

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Possible bug in np.array type calculation

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Joseph Fox-Rabinovitz < jfoxrabinov...@gmail.com> wrote: > I recently asked a question on Stack Overflow about whether `np.array` > could raise an error if not passed a dtype parameter: > https://stackoverflow.com/q/49639414/2988730. > > Turns out it can: > > np

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Introduction: NumPy developers at BIDS

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:08 AM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I am excited to report that we have completed the hiring of two full > time NumPy developers at BIDS [0]. > > Matti Picus has done extensive work on the PyPy project and specifically > cpyext, their C compatibility lay

[Numpy-discussion] Switch to pytest

Hi All, Just a heads up that there is a PR to switching numpy testing from nose to pytest. I will put it in soon if there are no complaints. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PyData Man AHL Hackathon

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 9:51 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > Hi there, > > Man AHL is organizing a hackathon for various projects around PyData, > including NumPy (but also SciPy, etc.: https://www.ahl.com/hackathon). > > They have generously offered some funding to get some contributors to > help.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy sprint May 24-25 at BIDS and virtual meetup tomorrow

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:55 AM, Matti Picus wrote: > We will take advantage of a few NumPy developers being at Berkeley to hold > a two day sprint May 24-25 https://scisprints.github.io/# > may-numpy-developer-sprint. > Everyone is welcome, drop me a note if you are thinking of coming so we > c

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.14.3 released

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018, 1:51 PM Allan Haldane wrote: > Hi All, > > I am pleased to announce the release of NumPy 1.14.3. This is a bugfix > release for a few bugs reported following the 1.14.2 release: > > * np.lib.recfunctions.fromrecords accepts a list-of-lists, until 1.15 > * In python2, flo

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy sprint May 24-25 at BIDS

Hi Matti, I need to know some details: 1. Where is the meeting 2. When is the meeting 3. Where are good places to stay 4. Is there a recommended airport I expect the university has a page somewhere with useful information for visitors, a link would be helpful. I've been to SV several

[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.15 branch

Hi All, I'm thinking of branching 1.15 in the next week or so, not least because we need to get a fix out for the instruction reordering problem , maybe as a backport also. As it common with NumPy development, our attention gets dedicated to the top of

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy sprint May 24-25 at BIDS

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Jarrod Millman wrote: > Hi Chuck, > > A few more bits of advice from a local ... > > Oakland airport is smaller and closer, so I try to use it when I can. > But SFO probably has more options and isn't too far away. > > I prefer Hotel Shattuck Plaza to Hotel Durant

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Where to discuss NEPs (was: Re: new NEP: np.AbstractArray and np.asabstractarray)

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Stephan Hoyer wrote: > Reviving this discussion -- > I don't really care what our policy is, but can we make a decision one way > or the other about where we discuss NEPs? We've had a revival of NEP > writing recently, so this is very timely. > > Previously, I was

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Allowing broadcasting of code dimensions in generalized ufuncs

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > p.p.s. Your multiple dispatch signature for broadcasted dimensions is > actually not quite right: should be > (n|1),(n|1)->() ===> > > (n),(n)->() | (n),(1)->() | (1),(n)->() | (n),() -> () | (),(n)->() > >

[Numpy-discussion] Python 3 compatible examples

Hi All, This post is prompted by this PR . It would be good to come up with a timeline and plan for rewriting the examples to be Python 3 compatible. When we do so, we should also make it assumed that `from __future__ import print_function` has been execu

Re: [Numpy-discussion] A roadmap for NumPy - longer term planning

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Matti Picus wrote: > At the recent NumPy sprint at BIDS (thanks to those who made the trip) we > spent some time brainstorming about a roadmap for NumPy, in the spirit of > similar work that was done for Jupyter. The idea is that a document with > wide community a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP: Random Number Generator Policy

On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > As promised distressingly many months ago, I have written up a NEP about > relaxing the stream-compatibility policy that we currently have. > > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/11229 > https://github.com/rkern/numpy/blob/nep/rng/doc/neps/ >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP: Random Number Generator Policy

On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 9:24 PM Charles R Harris > wrote: > >> >> On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Robert Kern >> wrote: >>> >>> This policy was first instated in Nov 2008 (in essence; the full set

[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.14.4 release

Hi All, The release notes for the NumPy 1.14.4 release are up. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.14.4 released.

Hi All, On behalf of the NumPy team, I am pleased to announce the release of NumPy 1.14.4. This is a bugfix release for bugs reported following the 1.14.3 release. The most significant fixes are: * fixes for compiler instruction reordering that resulted in NaN's not being properly propagated in

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.14.5 bugfix release

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Matti Picus wrote: > If there is a desire to do a bug-fix release 1.14.5 I would like to try my > hand at releasing it, using doc/RELEASE_WALKTHROUGH.rst.txt. There were a > few issues around compiling 1.14.4 on alpine and NetBSD. > Since 1.15 will probably be re

[Numpy-discussion] SciPy 2018

Hi All, Thought I'd raise the topic of meeting up at SciPy 2018. I wasn't planning on registering for the main conference, but would be happy to fly down for a couple of days if we plan on a meetup during sprints or some other point in the conference schedule. Chuck __

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Permissions to upload to PyPI

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Matti Picus wrote: > Almost ready to finish the 1.14.5 release, but it seems I need permissions > to upload to PyPI (makes sense). My user name there is mattip. Can someone > help out? > Matti > Done. Sorry I missed that. Chuck __

[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.15.x branched.

Hi All, NumPy 1.15.x has been branched and master is now open for 1.16 development. If there are any remaining PRs that *just have to be in 1.15*, please complain here :0 Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.p

[Numpy-discussion] Dropping Python 3.4 support for NumPy 1.16

Hi All, I think NumPy 1.16 would be a good time to drop Python 3.4 support. We will want to do that anyway once we drop 2.7 so that we will only be using recent Windows compilers, and with Python 3.7 due at the end of the month I think supporting 3.5-7 for 1.16 should be sufficient. Thoughts? Ch

[Numpy-discussion] Updated 1.15.0 release notes

Hi All, There is a PR for the updated NumPy 1.15.0 release notes . I would appreciate it if all those involved in the thatn release would have a look and fix incorrect or missing notes. Cheers, Chuck ___ NumP

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Updated 1.15.0 release notes

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Nathan Goldbaum wrote: > Hi Chuck, > > Are you planning on doing an rc release this time? I think the NumPy 1.14 > release was unusually bumpy and part of that was the lack of an rc. One > example: importing h5py caused a warning under numpy 1.14 and an h5py > rel

[Numpy-discussion] rackspace ssl certificates

Hi All, I've been trying to put out the NumPy 1.15.0rc1, but cannot get `numpy-wheels` to upload the wheels to rackspace on windows, there is a certification problem. I note that that requirement was supposedly disabled: on_success: # Upload the generated wheel package to Rackspace # On Wind

Re: [Numpy-discussion] rackspace ssl certificates

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Nathan Goldbaum wrote: > I think Matthew Brett needs to fix this. > That would be nice, but I'm not convinced it is helpful :) I note that latest `apache-libcloud` does not install directly on windows, there seem to be some missing dependencies. Chuck

Re: [Numpy-discussion] rackspace ssl certificates

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 9:42 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Nathan Goldbaum > > wrote: > >> > >> I think Matthew Brett needs to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] rackspace ssl certificates

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Matthew Brett > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] rackspace ssl certificates

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:57 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Matthew Brett > > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Cha

Re: [Numpy-discussion] rackspace ssl certificates

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:57 AM, Matthew Brett > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >

[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.15.0rc1 released

Hi All, On behalf of the NumPy team I'm pleased to announce the release of NumPy 1.15.0rc1. This release has an unusual number of cleanups, many deprecations of old functions, and improvements to many existing functions. A total of 423 pull reguests were merged for this release, please look at the

[Numpy-discussion] Github down on comcast

Hi All, Just a note for those who may be having a problem reaching Github, it is currently down for comcast users. See http://downdetector.com/status/github/map/. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.or

Re: [Numpy-discussion] rackspace ssl certificates

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Matti Picus > wrote: > > On 19/06/18 10:57, Matthew Brett wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Matti Picus >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] rackspace ssl certificates

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:31 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Polynomial evaluation inconsistencies

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:21 PM, Maxwell Aifer wrote: > Hi, > I noticed some frustrating inconsistencies in the various ways to evaluate > polynomials using numpy. Numpy has three ways of evaluating polynomials > (that I know of) and each of them has a different syntax: > >- > >numpy.poly

Re: [Numpy-discussion] rackspace ssl certificates

Not to worry, I'll just wait on the daily. On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 2:32 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 12:36 AM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Matthew Brett > > wrote: > >> > >&g

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Polynomial evaluation inconsistencies

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Eric Wieser wrote: > > if a single program uses both np.polyval() and > np.polynomail.Polynomial, it seems bound to cause unnecessary confusion. > > Yes, I would recommend definitely not doing that! > > > I still think it would make more sense for np.polyval() t

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Polynomial evaluation inconsistencies

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Ilhan Polat wrote: > I think restricting polynomials to time series is not a generic way and > quite specific. > I think more of complex analysis and it's use of series. > Apart from the series and certain filter design actual usage of > polynomials are always

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Polynomial evaluation inconsistencies

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Eric Wieser > wrote: > >> Since the one of the arguments for the decreasing order seems to just be >> textual representation - do we want to tweak the repr to something lik

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Polynomial evaluation inconsistencies

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Eric Wieser wrote: > Since the one of the arguments for the decreasing order seems to just be > textual representation - do we want to tweak the repr to something like > > Polynomial(lambda x: 2*x**3 + 3*x**2 + x + 0) > > (And add a constructor that calls the lamb

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PEP 574 - zero-copy pickling with out of band data

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Hello, > > Some of you might know that I've been working on a PEP in order to > improve pickling performance of large (or huge) data. The PEP, > numbered 574 and titled "Pickle protocol 5 with out-of-band data", > allows participating dat

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PEP 574 - zero-copy pickling with out of band data

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >> >> Hello, >> >> Some of you might know that I've been working on a PEP in order to >> improve pickling performance of larg

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Corrupted installation?

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:59 AM, Tom Cook wrote: > I have a remote sensing platform that uses Numpy on a raspberry pi. There > are about a dozen of these installed. Three days ago, the Python part of > the software started crashing during startup, with this exception message: > > Traceback (most

[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.15.0rc2 released.

Hi All, On behalf of the NumPy team I'm pleased to announce the release of NumPy 1.15.0rc2. This release has an unusual number of cleanups, many deprecations of old functions, and improvements to many existing functions. A total of 435 pull reguests were merged for this release, please look at the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.15.0rc2 released.

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Nathan Goldbaum wrote: > Hi Chuck, > > Is there a summary of the differences with respect to rc1 somewhere? > No, but you can look at the changelog to see what went in. and compare it to the previous changelog to see what is additional. Chuck

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.15.0rc2 released.

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe not too unhelpful: > > mhvk@weasel:~/packages/numpy$ git log v1.15.0rc1..v1.15.0rc2 > commit ccc68b80305ff5b363d10f6e905fb4e5276a8adb (HEAD, tag: v1.15.0rc2) > Author: Charles Harris > Date: Mon Jul

[Numpy-discussion] Commit privileges

Hi All, The NumPy Steering Council has been looking at commit rights for the NumPy developers hired at BIDS. We would like them to be able to label PRs, close issues, and merge simple fixes; doing that requires commit privileges. OTOH, it is also the case that people paid to work on NumPy don't au

[Numpy-discussion] Upcoming 1.15.0 release

Hi All, Just a heads up that the NumPy 1.15.0 release is planned for next Monday, Jul 23. If you have encountered a problem with the pre-release, please yell. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/ma

[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.15.0 released.

Hi All, On behalf of the NumPy team I'm pleased to announce the release of NumPy 1.15.0rc2. This release has an unusual number of cleanups, many deprecations of old functions, and improvements to many existing functions. A total of 438 pull reguests were merged for this release, please look at the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.15.0 released.

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Charles R Harris < charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > On behalf of the NumPy team I'm pleased to announce the release of NumPy > 1.15.0rc2. > Oops, NumPy 1.15.0. Oh well ... This release has an unusual number of cleanups

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 6:03 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > My ideal version would be substantially shorter, maybe just quote the > golden rule, but I am happy with the suggestion to just adapt this text. I > particularly appreciate the lack of absolutism in the text

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >