On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> So here are my concerns:
> >>
> >> - We decided to revert the changes to np.gradient in 1.9.1 (at least
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> So here are my concerns:
>>
>> - We decided to revert the changes to np.gradient in 1.9.1 (at least
>> by default). I'm not sure how much of that decision was based on the
>>
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Okay! I think I now actually understand what was going on with
> np.gradient! The discussion has been pretty confused, and I'm worried
> that what's in master right now is not the right solution, which is a
> problem because we're supposed
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> Okay! I think I now actually understand what was going on with
>> np.gradient! The discussion has been pretty confused, and I'm worried
>> that what's in master right now is
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Okay! I think I now actually understand what was going on with
> np.gradient! The discussion has been pretty confused, and I'm worried
> that what's in master right now is not the right solution, which is a
> problem because we're supp
Okay! I think I now actually understand what was going on with
np.gradient! The discussion has been pretty confused, and I'm worried
that what's in master right now is not the right solution, which is a
problem because we're supposed to cut 1.9.1 tomorrow.
Background:
np.gradient computes gradien
