Robert Kern wrote:
>
> -lots. I don't want to break API compatibility again no matter what
> version number we bump to, 1.1, 2.0, or 24. It is simply not okay to
> do this again and again.
>
>
I didn't dare saying anything, but now that I see I am not the only one,
I can sheepishly say I agree
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Given that the next release will be 1.1, I think it is reasonable to
> > include a few additional API breaks.
>
> -lots. I don't want to break API compatibility again no matter what
> version number we bump to, 1.1,
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Jarrod Millman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Alan G Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Charles R Harris apparently wrote:
> > > Let's not rush 1.1, then.
> >
> > Will matrix behavior change in 1.1, as dis
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Alan G Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Charles R Harris apparently wrote:
> > Let's not rush 1.1, then.
>
> Will matrix behavior change in 1.1, as discussed from time
> to time? Perhaps it just takes a very small change in __getitem__:
>
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Charles R Harris apparently wrote:
> Let's not rush 1.1, then.
Will matrix behavior change in 1.1, as discussed from time
to time? Perhaps it just takes a very small change in __getitem__:
http://www.mail-archive.com/numpy-discussion@scipy.org/msg07363.html>
Cheers,
Alan I
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's not rush 1.1, then. I think with another week or two we should be able
> to settle most of the outstanding bugs and it would be good to do so before
> getting caught up in planning 1.2.
+1. I think that we are s
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Jarrod Millman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think we have a long way to go to get to 1.1. What API changes have we
> > made that are so great that we can't release 1.0.5? The onl
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Jarrod Millman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think we have a long way to go to get to 1.1. What API changes have we
> > made that are so great that we can't release 1.0.5? The o
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we have a long way to go to get to 1.1. What API changes have we
> made that are so great that we can't release 1.0.5? The only area where I
> have seen real problems is in masked arrays. My preference would be
Charles R Harris wrote:
>
> I think we have a long way to go to get to 1.1. What API changes have
> we made that are so great that we can't release 1.0.5? The only area
> where I have seen real problems is in masked arrays. My preference
> would be to release the trunk as 1.0.5, and if not, simp
Hey,
This is just a short note to explain the plan for future release
numbering. Basically, we are just going to be much more rigorous
about following everyone's expectations about release numbers.
1.1.0 will be released ASAP and will include some minor API breakage
and new features
1.1.x will
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Travis E. Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> After the SciPy sprints some useful discussions took place that helped
> us all realize that we have made enough changes to the code base that we
> will need to call any release from the trunk 1.1
>
> I don't think t
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Travis E. Oliphant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, the question is. Do we have enough energy in the community to
> release the current trunk as 1.1 as well as release 1.0.5 which does not
> contain any of the code/api changes, but just the bug fixes? The answe
After the SciPy sprints some useful discussions took place that helped
us all realize that we have made enough changes to the code base that we
will need to call any release from the trunk 1.1
I don't think that is a big problem. However, there have also been a
lot of substantial bug fixes t
Neil Crighton wrote:
> The Win32 installer works on my Vista machine. There is one failed
> test, but I think that's just because it tries to write somewhere it
> doesn't have permission - I installed Python in /Program
> Files/Python25/, and you need to be an administrator to write to
> Program F
Bruce Southey wrote:
> Hi,
> The installer requires 2.5 but that is not explicitly stated. Given
> that numpy and scipy technically require Python 2.3 as a minimum, the
> installer should support Python 2.3 and Python 2.4. Otherwise, it
> needs to clearly state that Python 2.5 is a must.
>
Stri
Travis E. Oliphant wrote:
> Robert Kern wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Eric Firing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> This (on little-endian machine) surprised me:
>>>
>>> In [23]:np.ones((1,), dtype='>> Out[23]:array([1], dtype=int16)
>>>
>>> In [24]:np.ones((1,), dtype='>i2')
>>>
Hi,
The installer requires 2.5 but that is not explicitly stated. Given
that numpy and scipy technically require Python 2.3 as a minimum, the
installer should support Python 2.3 and Python 2.4. Otherwise, it
needs to clearly state that Python 2.5 is a must.
I did install Python 2.5.2 on my WIndows
Robert Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Eric Firing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This (on little-endian machine) surprised me:
>>
>> In [23]:np.ones((1,), dtype='> Out[23]:array([1], dtype=int16)
>>
>> In [24]:np.ones((1,), dtype='>i2')
>> Out[24]:array([256], dtype=int16)
>
The Win32 installer works on my Vista machine. There is one failed
test, but I think that's just because it tries to write somewhere it
doesn't have permission - I installed Python in /Program
Files/Python25/, and you need to be an administrator to write to
Program Files/.
Here's the error messag
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Eric Firing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This (on little-endian machine) surprised me:
>
> In [23]:np.ones((1,), dtype=' Out[23]:array([1], dtype=int16)
>
> In [24]:np.ones((1,), dtype='>i2')
> Out[24]:array([256], dtype=int16)
>
> I expected the value to be [1
This (on little-endian machine) surprised me:
In [23]:np.ones((1,), dtype='http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:24 PM, David Cournapeau
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think I got the problem. Now, I got it working on my two vmware
> windows at hand. Could you try this:
>
>
> http://www.ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp/members/david/archives/numpy-superpack-python2.5.exe
Did you have a pr
Everything installed without problem on Intel Pentium M on my notebook
recognized as SSE2 capable.
Installer found Python 2.5. immediately, which I just installed and
all my windows environment settings are still setup for python 2.4
Thanks,
Josef
>>> numpy.test()
Numpy is installed in C:\Progra
Tested fine on my old Classic Athlon 500 (no SSE) under Win98. It
correctly reported installing the non-SSE version when I clicked on the
details button on the last page of the install wizard. Whereas
previously numpy.test() would bring up an illegal operation dialog box,
now all tests pass. Ni
Hi Jarrod,
any news with the 1.0.5? If you have same prerelease, I'd like to test
it. Debian has just moved from python2.4 to python2.5 yesterday, so
I'd like to test numpy in advance, I am sure there will be some issues
to fix.
Ondrej
___
Numpy-discuss
26 matches
Mail list logo
