Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >> Python in fact has the __future__ imports that help quite a bit for >> people to start adapting their codes.  How about creating a >> numpy.future module where new, non-backward-compatible APIs could go? >> That would give the adventurous

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Jun 27, 2012, at 1:18 AM, Fernando Perez wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >> I just want to speak up for the people who are affected by API breakage who >> are not as vocal on this list. > > Certainly! And indeed I bet you that's a community underrepresent

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >  I just want to speak up for the people who are affected by API breakage who > are not as vocal on this list. Certainly! And indeed I bet you that's a community underrepresented here: those of us who are on this list are likely to be up

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

I do understand the issues around ABI breakage. I just want to speak up for the people who are affected by API breakage who are not as vocal on this list. I believe we should have similar frustration and concern at talk of API breakage as there is about talk of ABI breakage. -Travis On Ju

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Travis Oliphant > wrote: > ... >> >> What should have happened in this case, in my mind, is that NumPy 1.4.0 >> should have been 1.5.0 and advertised that there was a break in the ABI and >> that all extens

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

Travis, apologies in advance if the tone of this message is too strong - please take it as a sign of how frustrating I find the discussion on this point. On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: ... > What should have happened in this case, in my mind, is that NumPy 1.4.0 > should

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Jason Grout > > wrote: > > On 6/26/12 3:06 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > >> Something the Sage project does very well is meeting often in person > > > > Another thing we have that has improved the mailing

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On 26 June 2012 22:39, John Hunter wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote: >> +1 ! >> >> Speaking as someone trying to get started in contributing to numpy, I >> find this discussion extremely off-putting.  It's childish, >> meaningless, and spiteful, and I think it's d

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On 6/26/12 3:31 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > Thank you for the reminder. I was already called out for not stopping. > Thanks, Dag. A flame-list might indeed be a good idea at this point if > there is further need for "clearing the air" > Also, having it set up before it is needed is part

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote: > +1 ! > > Speaking as someone trying to get started in contributing to numpy, I > find this discussion extremely off-putting.  It's childish, > meaningless, and spiteful, and I think it's doing more harm than any > possible good that coul

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Jun 26, 2012, at 3:27 PM, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Jason Grout > wrote: >> On 6/26/12 3:06 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >>> Something the Sage project does very well is meeting often in person >> >> Another thing we have that has improved the mailing l

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Jason Grout wrote: > On 6/26/12 3:06 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >> Something the Sage project does very well is meeting often in person > > Another thing we have that has improved the mailing list climate is a > "sage-flame" list [1] +1 ! Speaking as someon

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On 6/26/12 3:06 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > Something the Sage project does very well is meeting often in person Another thing we have that has improved the mailing list climate is a "sage-flame" list [1] that serves as a venting release valve for anyone to post *anything* at all. There h

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > Exactly. > > >> I don't >> feel responsible for this issue (except I maybe should have pushed >> more strongly about datetime being included), > > > I think you left out a 'not'. I don't mean to imply that you were in > anyway the blame.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On 06/26/2012 09:51 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >> >> Exactly. >> >> I don't >> feel responsible for this issue (except I maybe should have pushed >> more strongly about datetime being included), >> >> >> I think you left out a 'not'. I don't mean to imply that you were in >> anyway the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

> > Exactly. > > I don't > feel responsible for this issue (except I maybe should have pushed > more strongly about datetime being included), > > I think you left out a 'not'. I don't mean to imply that you were in anyway > the blame. And you have been pretty adamant about not allowing late me

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Travis Oliphant > wrote: > > > >> Let us note that that problem was due to Travis convincing David to > >> include the Datetime work in the release against David's own best > judgement. > >> The result wa

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

> > Or, we could raise funds for NumFOCUS by selling tickets for a brawl between > the two at SciPy2012... > > I kid, I kid! Thanks for the humor. Unfortunately, I would be no match physically with someone used to the cold of Logan :-) -Travis _

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

> > I think Chuck alludes to the fact that I was rather reserved about > merging datetime before *anyone* knew about breaking the ABI. I don't > feel responsible for this issue (except I maybe should have pushed > more strongly about datetime being included), but I am also not > interested in maki

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:48 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Travis Oliphant > wrote: > > > >> Let us note that that problem was due to Travis convincing David to > >> include the Datetime work in the release against David's own best > judgement. > >> The result wa

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > >> Let us note that that problem was due to Travis convincing David to >> include the Datetime work in the release against David's own best judgement. >> The result was a delay of several months until Ralf could get up to speed >> and get 1

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Jun 26, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: >> Calling this and that 'gratuitous' is already damaging to the community. >> Them's fightin' words. If you didn't want a fight you could have simply >> pointed out a path forwar

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > Calling this and that 'gratuitous' is already damaging to the community. > Them's fightin' words. If you didn't want a fight you could have simply > pointed out a path forward. I disagree. If a change is gratuitous, and someone call's it

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

>> Let us note that that problem was due to Travis convincing David to include >> the Datetime work in the release against David's own best judgement. The >> result was a delay of several months until Ralf could get up to speed and >> get 1.4.1 out. Let us also note that poly1d is actually not

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > On Jun 26, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Ondřej Čertík wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Fernando Perez >> wrote: >> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Travis Oliphant >> w

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Jun 26, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Ondřej Čertík > wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Travis Oliphant > > wrote: > >> > >> On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Fernando Perez

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Ondřej Čertík wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Fernando Perez > wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Travis Oliphant > wrote: > >> > >> On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: > > > >> > >> For context, consider that for many years, the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On 06/26/2012 11:58 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > wrote: >> On 06/26/2012 05:35 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík >>> wrote: >>> My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > On 06/26/2012 05:35 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík   >> wrote: >> >>> >>> My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress "We have to >>> think about the implications of our ch

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On 06/26/2012 05:35 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík > wrote: > >> >> My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress "We have to >> think about the implications of our changes on existing users." and >> also that little changes (with the bes

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > Hey all, > > I made a branch called with_maskna and then merged Nathaniel's PR which > removes the mask_na support from master.  I then applied a patch to fix the > boolean indexing problem reported by Ralf. > > I then created a NumPy 1.7

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > Eventually we will need to break the ABI.   We might as well wait until 2.0 > at this point. Ah, got it; thanks for the clarification, I just didn't understand the original. Cheers, f ___ Num

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Jun 26, 2012, at 12:09 AM, Fernando Perez wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >> I agree a decision needs to be made. I think we will need to break the >> ABI.At this point, I don't know of any pressing features that would >> require it short of NumPy 2.0.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > I agree a decision needs to be made.   I think we will need to break the ABI. >    At this point, I don't know of any pressing features that would require it > short of NumPy 2.0. Sorry, I don't quite know how to parse the above, do you

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

>> In the present climate, I'm going to have to provide additional context to a >> comment like this. This is not an accurate enough characterization of >> events. I was trying to get date-time changes in, for sure. I generally >> like feature additions to NumPy. (Robert Kern was also inv

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2012, at 10:35 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík >> wrote: >> >>> >>> My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress "We have to >>> think about the implications of ou

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Jun 25, 2012, at 10:35 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík > wrote: > >> >> My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress "We have to >> think about the implications of our changes on existing users." and >> also that little changes (wi

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Ondřej Čertík wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:35 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík >> wrote: >> >>> >>> My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress "We have to >>> think about the implications of our

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:35 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík > wrote: > >> >> My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress "We have to >> think about the implications of our changes on existing users." and >> also that little changes (wi

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík wrote: > > My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress "We have to > think about the implications of our changes on existing users." and > also that little changes (with the best intentions!) that however mean > either a breakage or co

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

>> >> I just want to note that I'm not advocating for *any* >> backwards-compatibility breakage in numpy at this point... I was just >> providing context for a discussion that happened back in 2009, and in >> the scipy list. I certainly feel pretty strongly at this point about >> the importance o

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Ondřej Čertík wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: >> >>> >>> For context, consider that for many years, the word "gr

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

>> >> That's a nice argument for a different convention, really it is. It's not >> enough for changing a convention that already exists. Now, the polynomial >> object could store coefficients in this order, but allow construction with >> the coefficients in the standard convention order. Th

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >> >> On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: > >> >> For context, consider that for many years, the word "gratuitous" has been >> used in a non-derogatory way in the Pytho

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Jun 25, 2012, at 9:38 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >> >> On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: > >> >> For context, consider that for many years, the word "gratuitous" has been >> used in a non-derogatory way in the Pytho

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: > > For context, consider that for many years, the word "gratuitous" has been > used in a non-derogatory way in the Python ecosystem to describe changes to > semantics and syntax that

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:53 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM,   wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Travis Oliphant >>> wrote: You are still missing the point that there was already a choice

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:53 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM, wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >>> You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was >>> made in the previous class --- made in Numeric actually

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >> You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was >> made in the previous class --- made in Numeric actually. >> >> You made a change to that. It is the change

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM, wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >> You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was >> made in the previous class --- made in Numeric actually. >> >> You made a change to that.  It is the change that is 'gr

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was > made in the previous class --- made in Numeric actually. > > You made a change to that.  It is the change that is 'gratuitous'.  The pain > and unnecessary overhead

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was > made in the previous class --- made in Numeric actually. > > You made a change to that.  It is the change that is 'gratuitous'. As someone who played a role in that

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was made in the previous class --- made in Numeric actually. You made a change to that. It is the change that is 'gratuitous'. The pain and unnecessary overhead of having two competing standards is the problem --- not whethe

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Perry Greenfield wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Perry Greenfield > > wrote: > > > > It's hard to generalize that much here. There are some areas in what > > you say is true, particul

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Jun 25, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Perry Greenfield > wrote: > > It's hard to generalize that much here. There are some areas in what > you say is true, particularly if whole industries rely on libraries > that have much time involved i

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Perry Greenfield wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > >>> > >>> Most folks aren't going to transition from MATLAB or IDL. > >>> Engineers tend to stick with the tools they learned in school, > >>> they aren't interested in the tool i

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Jun 25, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: >>> >>> Most folks aren't going to transition from MATLAB or IDL. >>> Engineers tend to stick with the tools they learned in school, >>> they aren't interested in the tool itself as long as they can get >>> their job done. And getting the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > >> C was famous for bugs due to the lack of function prototypes. This was >> fixed with C99 and the stricter typing was a great help. >> >> >> Bugs are not "due to lack of function prototypes". Bugs are due to >> mistakes that programmers

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

>> >> C was famous for bugs due to the lack of function prototypes. This was fixed >> with C99 and the stricter typing was a great help. > > Bugs are not "due to lack of function prototypes". Bugs are due to mistakes > that programmers make (and I know all about mistakes programmers make). >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Jun 23, 2012, at 7:12 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > What has been done in the past is that an intent to fork is announced some > > two weeks in advance so that pe

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Jun 23, 2012, at 4:23 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Charles R Harris > wrote: >> What has been done in the past is that an intent to fork is announced some >> two weeks in advance so that people can weigh in on what needs to be done >> before the fork. The i

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

> > What has been done in the past is that an intent to fork is announced some > two weeks in advance so that people can weigh in on what needs to be done > before the fork. The immediate fork was a bit hasty. Likewise, when I > suggested going to the github issue tracking, I opened a discussi

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > What has been done in the past is that an intent to fork is announced > some > > two weeks in advance so that people can weigh in on what needs to be done > > before the for

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > What has been done in the past is that an intent to fork is announced > some > > two weeks in advance so that people can weigh in on what needs to be done > > before the for

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > What has been done in the past is that an intent to fork is announced some > two weeks in advance so that people can weigh in on what needs to be done > before the fork. The immediate fork was a bit hasty. Likewise, when I > suggested goin

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On 06/23/2012 09:32 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > On 06/23/2012 05:14 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Travis Oliphant> > wrote: >> >>> >>> The usual practice is to announce a schedule first. >> >> I just did announce t

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On 06/23/2012 05:14 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Travis Oliphant > wrote: > >> >> The usual practice is to announce a schedule first. > > I just did announce the schedule. > > > What has been done in the past is that an inte

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > The usual practice is to announce a schedule first. > > > I just did announce the schedule. > > What has been done in the past is that an intent to fork is announced some two weeks in advance so that people can weigh in on what needs to b

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

> > The usual practice is to announce a schedule first. I just did announce the schedule. > > There is time before the first Release candidate to make changes on the 1.7.x > branch. If you want to make the changes on master, and just indicate the > Pull requests, Ondrej can make sure th

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Wes McKinney wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Travis Oliphant > > wrote: > >> > >> I thought it was clear we were doing a 1.7 release before SciPy. It > >> seems pretty urgent that we

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Travis Oliphant > wrote: >> >> I thought it was clear we were doing a 1.7 release before SciPy.   It >> seems pretty urgent that we get something out sooner than later.      I know >> there is never enough

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > I thought it was clear we were doing a 1.7 release before SciPy. It > seems pretty urgent that we get something out sooner than later. I > know there is never enough time to do all the things we want to do. > > There is time before t

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > >> >> One particularly glaring example to my lens on the world: I think it >> would have been better to define new macros which require semicolons than >> changing the macros

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > I thought it was clear we were doing a 1.7 release before SciPy. It > seems pretty urgent that we get something out sooner than later. I > know there is never enough time to do all the things we want to do. > > The usual practice is

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

I thought it was clear we were doing a 1.7 release before SciPy. It seems pretty urgent that we get something out sooner than later. I know there is never enough time to do all the things we want to do. There is time before the first Release candidate to make changes on the 1.7.x branc

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> I made a branch called with_maskna and then merged Nathaniel's PR which >> removes the mask_na support from master. I then applied a patch to fix the >> bool

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > Hey all, > > I made a branch called with_maskna and then merged Nathaniel's PR which > removes the mask_na support from master. I then applied a patch to fix the > boolean indexing problem reported by Ralf. > > I then created a NumPy 1.7.x

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

Hi, Glad to see that 1.7 is coming soon ! Le 21/06/2012 12:11, Travis Oliphant a écrit : > NumPy 1.7 is a significant release and has several changes many of which are > documented in the release notes. I browsed the sources on github and ended up here : https://github.com/numpy/numpy/tree/mai

[Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

Hey all, I made a branch called with_maskna and then merged Nathaniel's PR which removes the mask_na support from master. I then applied a patch to fix the boolean indexing problem reported by Ralf. I then created a NumPy 1.7.x maintenance branch from which the release of NumPy 1.7 will b