Hi Brian
On 2015-09-21 23:28:48, Bryan Van de Ven wrote:
>> very hard to do. Currently, e.g., the community is not ready to adopt
>> numba as part of the ufunc core. But it's been stated by some that,
>
> Who are you speaking for? The entire community? Under what mandate?
I am speaking on beha
Of course it will be 1.10.0 final where all the problems will show up
suddenly :-)
Perhaps we can get to where we are testing Anaconda against beta releases
better.
-Travis
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Just a heads up. The lack of reported problems in
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Stefan van der Walt
wrote:
> On 2015-09-21 22:15:55, Bryan Van de Ven wrote:
> > Beyond that, what (even in a broad sense) is an example of a goal that
> > "Continuum might need" that would conceivably do detriment to the
> > NumPy community? That it be faster? S
> I don't know how productive it is to dream up examples, but it's not
Well, agreed, to be honest.
> very hard to do. Currently, e.g., the community is not ready to adopt
> numba as part of the ufunc core. But it's been stated by some that,
Who are you speaking for? The entire community? Und
Thank you for posting that draft as it is a useful comparison to borrow
from. I think Nathaniel's original document is a great start. Perhaps
some tweaks along the lines of what you and Matt have suggested could also
be useful.
I agree that my proposal is mostly about altering the governance m
On 2015-09-21 22:15:55, Bryan Van de Ven wrote:
> Beyond that, what (even in a broad sense) is an example of a goal that
> "Continuum might need" that would conceivably do detriment to the
> NumPy community? That it be faster? Simpler to maintain? Easier to
> extend? Integrate better with more OS
On 2015-09-20 11:20:28, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> I would recommend three possible adjustments to the steering council
> concept.
>
> 1 - define a BDFL for the council. I would nominate chuck Harris
>
> 2 - limit the council to 3 people. I would nominate chuck, nathaniel, and
> pauli.
>
> 3 - add
> On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:42 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Bryan Van de Ven wrote:
>
> > On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> >
> > The second problem is that you have a potential conflict of interest,
> > in that it is possible for the ne
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Matthew Brett
wrote:
> Hi Travis, and all,
>
> You might have seen I was advocating for having someone who takes
> final responsibility for the project, partly to get discussions
> unstuck, as you said.
>
> I agree with Chris, that at this stage, there is no-one w
>
> until then our only real options are either hard breaks or nothing, so
> unless we want to do a hard break there's not much point talking about
> it.
I think this is the most important sentence from this thread. Thank you
Nathaniel for you extremely thorough analysis of the impact on real-w
Hi Antoine,
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:44 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Hi Nathaniel,
>
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 21:13:30 -0700
> Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> Given this, I propose that for 1.11 we:
>> 1) go ahead and hide/disable the problematic parts of the ABI/API,
>> 2) coordinate with the known af
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Jaime Fernández del Río
wrote:
> We have the PyArrayObject vs PyArrayObject_fields definition in
> ndarraytypes.h that is used to enforce access to the members through inline
> functions rather than directly, which seems to me like the right way to go:
> don't lea
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Bryan Van de Ven
wrote:
>
> > On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
> >
> > The second problem is that you have a potential conflict of interest,
> > in that it is possible for the needs of Continuum to conflict with the
> > needs of numpy. I beli
> On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>
> The second problem is that you have a potential conflict of interest,
> in that it is possible for the needs of Continuum to conflict with the
> needs of numpy. I believe, from previous emails on this list, that
> you don't think that is
Hi Travis, and all,
You might have seen I was advocating for having someone who takes
final responsibility for the project, partly to get discussions
unstuck, as you said.
I agree with Chris, that at this stage, there is no-one who could be
Benevolent Dictator for the project. It seems to me tha
Hi,
We have just released numpy 1.9.3, a small bugfix release to fix a bug
on Python 3.5, as well as some build issues.
You likely only need to upgrade from 1.9.2 if you are on Python 3.5.
There are source and OSX wheels up on pypi. We currently have no
plans to add 1.9.3 to the sourceforge sit
Hi All,
Just a heads up. The lack of reported problems in 1.10.0b1 has been
stunning.
Chuck
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Travis Oliphant
wrote:
> After long conversations at BIDS this weekend and after reading the entire
> governance document, I realized that the steering council is very large
>
How large are we talking? I think there were 8 people named -- and I'm not
sure all 8
I wrote my recommendations quickly before heading on a plane.I hope the
spirit of them was caught correctly.I also want to re-emphasize that I
completely understand that the Steering Council is not to be making
decisions that often and almost all activity will be similar to it is now
--- di
We have the PyArrayObject vs PyArrayObject_fields definition in
ndarraytypes.h that is used to enforce access to the members through inline
functions rather than directly, which seems to me like the right way to
go: don't leave stones unturned, hide everything and provide PyUFunc_NIN,
PyUFunc_NOUT
Hi Nathaniel,
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 21:13:30 -0700
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Given this, I propose that for 1.11 we:
> 1) go ahead and hide/disable the problematic parts of the ABI/API,
> 2) coordinate with the known affected projects to minimize disruption
> to their users (which is made easier si
On Mo, 2015-09-21 at 11:32 +0200, Sebastian Berg wrote:
> On So, 2015-09-20 at 11:20 -0700, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> > After long conversations at BIDS this weekend and after reading the
> > entire governance document, I realized that the steering council is
> > very large and I don't agree with t
On So, 2015-09-20 at 11:20 -0700, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> After long conversations at BIDS this weekend and after reading the
> entire governance document, I realized that the steering council is
> very large and I don't agree with the mechanism by which it is
> chosen.
>
Hmmm, well I never ha
23 matches
Mail list logo
