Hello,
I just got back from a camping trip and haven't had time to check the
status of the remaining open tickets; but it looks like there are a
few tickets that are ready to close. So I am pushing the schedule
back a week (with the hope that we can close a few more tickets before
the 1.0.4 relea
Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> On 10/20/07, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I
>
>> hope that in the end, scons will be used for numpy (for 1.1 ?), once I
>> finish the conversion.
>>
>> I don't see situations where adding 350 Kb in the tarball can be an
>> issue, so could you tell me
On 10/20/07, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And I
> hope that in the end, scons will be used for numpy (for 1.1 ?), once I
> finish the conversion.
>
> I don't see situations where adding 350 Kb in the tarball can be an
> issue, so could you tell me what the problem would be ?
Then if
Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> On 10/19/07, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> numpy.scons branch
>>
>> This is a much more massive change. Scons itself adds something like 350
>> kb to a bzip tarball.
>
> If numpy build system will not depend on scons (is this right?) then
> .. Is it strictl
On 10/19/07, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> numpy.scons branch
>
> This is a much more massive change. Scons itself adds something like 350
> kb to a bzip tarball.
If numpy build system will not depend on scons (is this right?) then
.. Is it strictly needed to distribute scons with
Travis E. Oliphant wrote:
> I've finally caught up with the discussion on aligned allocators for
> NumPy. In general I'm favorable to the idea, although it is not as
> easy to implement in 1.0.X because of the need to possibly change the C-API.
>
> The Python solution is workable and would just
Travis E. Oliphant wrote:
> We can't change the C-API for PyArray_FromAny to accept an alignment
> flag, and I'm pretty loath to do that even for 1.1.
>
Ooops! Pleas read that as can't accept an alignment *argument*
-Travis
___
Numpy-discussion ma
I've finally caught up with the discussion on aligned allocators for
NumPy. In general I'm favorable to the idea, although it is not as
easy to implement in 1.0.X because of the need to possibly change the C-API.
The Python solution is workable and would just require a function call
on the P
Travis E. Oliphant wrote:
> David Cournapeau wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> Hi Jarrod,
>>
>> Would it be possible to merge some of the work I have done recently
>> concerning cleaning configuration and so on (If nobody is against it, of
>> course) ? If this is considerer too big of a change, what
David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
> Hi Jarrod,
>
> Would it be possible to merge some of the work I have done recently
> concerning cleaning configuration and so on (If nobody is against it, of
> course) ? If this is considerer too big of a change, what is the plan
> for a 1.1 relea
Jarrod Millman wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After speaking with Travis, I think that we can release NumPy 1.0.4 by
> the end of the month. 1.0.3 came out almost 5 months ago and there
> have been a number of bug-fixes and other improvements since then.
>
> Please take a look at the 1.0.4 roadmap:
> http:/
Hi all,
After speaking with Travis, I think that we can release NumPy 1.0.4 by
the end of the month. 1.0.3 came out almost 5 months ago and there
have been a number of bug-fixes and other improvements since then.
Please take a look at the 1.0.4 roadmap:
http://scipy.org/scipy/numpy/milestone/1.0
12 matches
Mail list logo
