[Numpy-discussion] Schedule for 1.5.1?

Bruce Southey bsouthey@gmail....
Thu Oct 7 08:54:15 CDT 2010


  On 10/07/2010 08:45 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Charles R Harris 
> <charlesr.harris@gmail.com <mailto:charlesr.harris@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Ralf Gommers
>     <ralf.gommers@googlemail.com <mailto:ralf.gommers@googlemail.com>>
>     wrote:
>
>
>
>         On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Charles R Harris
>         <charlesr.harris@gmail.com <mailto:charlesr.harris@gmail.com>>
>         wrote:
>
>
>
>             On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Pauli Virtanen <pav@iki.fi
>             <mailto:pav@iki.fi>> wrote:
>
>                 Hi,
>
>                 Should we set a date for a bugfix 1.5.1 release? There
>                 are some bugs that
>                 would be nice to sort out in the 1.5.x series:
>
>                 Any Python versions:
>
>                 - #1605 (Cython vs. PEP-3118 issue: raising exceptions
>                 with active
>                         cython buffers caused undefined behavior.
>                 Breaks Sage.)
>                 - #1617 (Ensure complex(np.longcomplex(...)) doesn't
>                 drop the imag part)
>                 - Fix doc build
>
>                 Python 3 specific:
>
>                 - #1604 (//-issue in distutils; infinite loop in some
>                 cases :)
>                 - #1609 (dotblas was never used on Python 3)
>                 - #1610 (fromfile/tofile did not stay in sync with
>                 Python 3 file handle
>                         position -- breaks e.g. scipy.io
>                 <http://scipy.io> pretty badly)
>                 - f2py startup script didn't run properly on Py3
>
>                 Not so many fixes so far, but I'd like to see a Numpy
>                 release with #1610
>                 fixed before releasing Scipy with Python 3 support.
>                 Since 2.0.0 breaks
>                 binary compatibility and merging the refactoring back
>                 may take some time,
>                 it would be nice to have another 1.5.x release.
>
>                 Ralf & c, opinions? I'd maybe suggest somewhere on the
>                 Oct/Nov axis.
>
>
>         A 1.5.1 release soon would be good. All the issues above are
>         already committed, is there anything else that needs to go in?
>         If not, I think an RC by the end of next week (10/17) and
>         release by the end of the month should be possible.
>
>         The one bug that I want to have fixed is #1399, which causes
>         build problems for scipy on OS X.
>
>             Sounds good. I also have some stuff I'd like to add but
>             won't have much time before Nov. But whatever looks good
>             to Ralf will work for me.
>
>
>         Any specific issues you have in mind?
>
>
>     No, I just wanted to include the Laguerre and Hermite polynomials
>     and add a domain keyword to the linspace method of the polynomial
>     template. But I don't think these are pressing needs.
>
> These don't seem very appropriate for a bugfix release anyway. I trust 
> your code will be in very good shape when you add it, but let's not 
> start breaking our own rules for what can and cannot go in.
>
> Ralf
>
>

I agree that this is a good idea to have this minor release with as few 
changes as possible. This allows us to clearly state everything has 
moved to git and localize any problems that users should not have 
related to the switch. That way the change to git should reach people 
who don't follow the list.

Note that the Download page, http://www.scipy.org/Download,  for numpy 
under the 'Bleeding-edge repository access' still indicates the svn yet 
the developer zone page says git.

Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20101007/6b91c98d/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list