Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On 02/01/2016 04:25 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: It would be nice but its not realistic, I doubt most upstreams that are not themselves major downstreams are even subscribed to this list. I'm pretty sure that some core devs from all major scipy stack packages are subscribed to this l

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

Thanks, that is very helpful! On 01/30/2016 01:40 PM, Jeff Reback wrote: just my 2c it's fairly straightforward to add a test to the Travis matrix to grab numpy wheels built numpy wheels (works for conda or pip installs). so in pandas we r testing 2.7/3.5 against numpy master continuously h

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Michael Sarahan wrote: > Chris, > > Both conda-build-all and obvious-ci are excellent projects, and we'll > leverage them where we can (particularly conda-build-all). Obvious CI and > conda-smithy are in a slightly different space, as we want to use our own > anac

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

Robert, Thanks for pointing out auditwheel. We're experimenting with a GCC 5.2 toolchain, and this tool will be invaluable. Chris, Both conda-build-all and obvious-ci are excellent projects, and we'll leverage them where we can (particularly conda-build-all). Obvious CI and conda-smithy are in

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Michael Sarahan wrote: > FWIW, we (Continuum) are working on a CI system that builds conda recipes. > great, could be handy. I hope you've looked at the open-source systems that do this: obvious-ci and conda-build-all. And conda-smithy to help set it all up.. Chr

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

> (we've had a few recent issues with libgfortran accidentally missing as a requirement of scipy). On this topic, you may be able to get some milage out of adapting pypa/auditwheel, which can load up extension module `.so` files inside a wheel (or conda package) and walk the shared library depende

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

FWIW, we (Continuum) are working on a CI system that builds conda recipes. Part of this is testing not only individual packages that change, but also any downstream packages that are also in the repository of recipes. The configuration for this is in https://github.com/conda/conda-recipes/blob/mas

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Chris Barker > wrote: > > >> > If we set up a numpy-testing conda channel, it could be used to cache > >> > binary builds for all he versions of everything we want to test > >> > against. > Anaconda does

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Chris Barker wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> > If we set up a numpy-testing conda channel, it could be used to cache >> > binary builds for all he versions of everything we want to test >> > against. >> > >> > Conda-build-all c

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:24 PM, wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote: > >> 05.02.2016, 19:55, Nathaniel Smith kirjoitti: >> > On Feb 5, 2016 8:28 AM, "Chris Barker - NOAA Federal" < >> chris.bar...@noaa.gov> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >>> An extra ~2 hours of tests / 6-way

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > If we set up a numpy-testing conda channel, it could be used to cache > > binary builds for all he versions of everything we want to test > > against. > > > > Conda-build-all could make it manageable to maintain that channel. > > What wou

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

05.02.2016, 19:55, Nathaniel Smith kirjoitti: > On Feb 5, 2016 8:28 AM, "Chris Barker - NOAA Federal" > wrote: >> >>> An extra ~2 hours of tests / 6-way parallelism is not that big a deal >>> in the grand scheme of things (and I guess it's probably less than >>> that if we can take advantage of ex

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Feb 5, 2016 8:28 AM, "Chris Barker - NOAA Federal" wrote: > > > An extra ~2 hours of tests / 6-way parallelism is not that big a deal > > in the grand scheme of things (and I guess it's probably less than > > that if we can take advantage of existing binary builds) > > If we set up a numpy-test

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

> An extra ~2 hours of tests / 6-way parallelism is not that big a deal > in the grand scheme of things (and I guess it's probably less than > that if we can take advantage of existing binary builds) If we set up a numpy-testing conda channel, it could be used to cache binary builds for all he ver

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote: > > 01.02.2016, 23:25, Ralf Gommers kirjoitti: > > [clip] > >> So: it would really help if someone could pick up the automation part of > >> this and improve the stack testing, so the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

The test data for mpl is available as a sperate conda package, matplotlib-tests. The reason for splitting it is 40Mb of tests images. Tom On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 09:09 Pauli Virtanen wrote: > 04.02.2016, 07:56, Nathaniel Smith kirjoitti: > [clip] > > Whoops, got distracted talking about the resul

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

04.02.2016, 07:56, Nathaniel Smith kirjoitti: [clip] > Whoops, got distracted talking about the results and forgot to say -- > I guess we should think about how to combine these? I like the > information on warnings, because it helps gauge the impact of > deprecations, which is a thing that takes a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

> scipy: >one new failure, in test_nanmedian_all_axis >250 calls to np.testing.rand (wtf), 92 calls to random_integers, 3 uses > of datetime64 with timezones. And for some reason the new numpy gives more > "invalid value encountered in greater"-type warnings. One limitation of this approac

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 21:56:08 -0800 Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > An extra ~2 hours of tests / 6-way parallelism is not that big a deal > in the grand scheme of things (and I guess it's probably less than > that if we can take advantage of existing binary builds) -- certainly > I can see an argument f

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote: > > 01.02.2016, 23:25, Ralf Gommers kirjoitti: > > [clip] > >> So: it would really help if someone could pick up the automation part of > >> this and improve the stack testing, so the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote: > 01.02.2016, 23:25, Ralf Gommers kirjoitti: > [clip] >> So: it would really help if someone could pick up the automation part of >> this and improve the stack testing, so the numpy release manager doesn't >> have to do this. > > quick hack: ht

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

01.02.2016, 23:25, Ralf Gommers kirjoitti: [clip] > So: it would really help if someone could pick up the automation part of > this and improve the stack testing, so the numpy release manager doesn't > have to do this. quick hack: https://github.com/pv/testrig Not that I'm necessarily volunteerin

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

hi, even if it are good changes, I find it reasonable to ask for a delay in numpy release if you need more time to adapt. Of course this has to be within reason and can be rejected, but its very valuable to know changes break existing old workarounds. If pyfits broke there is probably a lot more co

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Julian Taylor < jtaylor.deb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On 01/30/2016 06:27 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Nathaniel Smith > > wrote: > > > > It occurs to me that the best solution might be to put

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

Hi Julian, While the numpy 1.10 situation was bad, I do want to clarify that the problems we had in astropy were a consequence of *good* changes in `recarray`, which solved many problems, but also broke the work-arounds that had been created in `astropy.io.fits` quite a long time ago (possibly bef

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On 01/30/2016 06:27 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Nathaniel Smith > wrote: > > It occurs to me that the best solution might be to put together a > .travis.yml for the release branches that does: "for pkg in > IMPORTANT_PACKAGE

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

just my 2c it's fairly straightforward to add a test to the Travis matrix to grab numpy wheels built numpy wheels (works for conda or pip installs). so in pandas we r testing 2.7/3.5 against numpy master continuously https://github.com/pydata/pandas/blob/master/ci/install-3.5_NUMPY_DEV.sh > O

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Jan 30, 2016 9:27 AM, "Ralf Gommers" wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> It occurs to me that the best solution might be to put together a .travis.yml for the release branches that does: "for pkg in IMPORTANT_PACKAGES: pip install $pkg; python -c 'impo

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > It occurs to me that the best solution might be to put together a > .travis.yml for the release branches that does: "for pkg in > IMPORTANT_PACKAGES: pip install $pkg; python -c 'import pkg; pkg.test()'" > This might not be viable right n

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Jan 29, 2016 9:46 AM, "Andreas Mueller" wrote: > > Is this the point when scikit-learn should build against it? Yes please! > Or do we wait for an RC? This is still all in flux, but I think we might actually want a rule that says it can't become an RC until after we've tested scikit-learn (a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

You most likely don't need a scipy build against it. You should be able to use the oldest scipy our project supports. Numpy does try to not break its reverse dependencies, if stuff breaks it should only occur in edge cases not affecting functionality of real applications (like warnings or overzealo

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

Is this the point when scikit-learn should build against it? Or do we wait for an RC? Also, we need a scipy build against it. Who does that? Our continuous integration doesn't usually build scipy or numpy, so it will be a bit tricky to add to our config. Would you run our master tests? [did we e

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Jan 28, 2016 3:25 PM, "Ralf Gommers" wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:03

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Jan 28, 2016 3:25 PM, "Ralf Gommers" wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Charles R Harris >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Charles R Harris > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >>> > >>> Maybe we should up

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >>> >>> Maybe we should upload to pypi? This allows us to upload binaries for osx >>> at least, and in genera

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Charles R Harris < charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> Maybe we should upload to pypi? This allows us to upload binaries for osx >> at least, and in general will make the beta available to anyone wh

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

AFAIK beta releases act just like regular releases, except that the pip ui and the pypi ui continue to emphasize the older "real" release. On Jan 28, 2016 2:03 PM, "Charles R Harris" wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> Maybe we should upload to pypi? This al

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Maybe we should upload to pypi? This allows us to upload binaries for osx > at least, and in general will make the beta available to anyone who does > 'pip install --pre numpy'. (But not regular 'pip install numpy', because > pip is clever

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

Maybe we should upload to pypi? This allows us to upload binaries for osx at least, and in general will make the beta available to anyone who does 'pip install --pre numpy'. (But not regular 'pip install numpy', because pip is clever enough to recognize that this is a prerelease and should not be u

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

Hi, On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > Hi All, > > I hope I am pleased to announce the Numpy 1.11.0b2 release. The first beta > was a damp squib due to missing files in the released source files, this > release fixes that. The new source filese may be downloaded from > so