[Numpy-discussion] 1.7 blockers
Mon Apr 16 16:55:31 CDT 2012
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Nathaniel Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Ralf Gommers
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Charles R Harris
> > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >> There several problems with numpy master that need to be fixed before a
> >> release can be considered.
> >> Datetime on windows with mingw.
> > Opened http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/2108 for the last datetime
> > failures.
> >> Bus error on SPARC, ticket #2076.
> >> NA and real/complex views of complex arrays.
> >> Number 1 has been proved to be particularly difficult, any help or
> >> suggestions for that would be much appreciated. The current work has
> >> going in pull request 214.
> >> This isn't to say that there aren't a ton of other things that need
> >> or that we can skip out on the current stack of pull requests, but I
> >> it is impossible to consider a release while those three problems are
> >> outstanding.
> > We've closed a number of open issues and merged some PRs, but haven't
> > much progress on the issues above. Especially for the NA issues I'm not
> > what's going on. Is anyone working on this at the moment? If so, can
> > give an update of things to change/fix and an estimate of how long that
> > take?
> There's been some ongoing behind-the-scenes discussion of the overall
> NA problem, but I wouldn't try to give an estimate on the outcome. My
> personal opinion is that given you already added the note to the docs
> that masked arrays are in a kind of experimental prototype state for
> this release, some small inconsistencies in their behaviour shouldn't
> be a release blocker.
> The release notes already have a whole list of stuff that's
> unsupported in the presence of masks ("Fancy
> indexing...UFunc.accumulate, UFunc.reduceat...where=...ndarray.argmax,
> ndarray.argmin..."), I'm not sure why .real and .imag are blockers and
> they aren't :-). Maybe just make a note of them on that list?
> (Unless of course Chuck fixes them before the other blockers are
> finished, as per his email that just arrived.)
Good point. If you look at the open tickets for 1.7.0 (
http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/report/3) with a view on getting a release
out soon, you could do the following:
#2066 : close as fixed.
#2078 : regression, should fix.
#1578 : important to fix, but not a regression. Include only if fixed on
#1755 : mark as knownfail.
#2025 : document as not working as expected yet.
#2047 : fix or postpone. Pearu indicated this will take him a few hours.
#2076 : one of many. not a blocker, postpone.
#2101 : need to do this. shouldn't cost much time.
#2108 : status unclear. likely a blocker.
Can someone who knows about datetime give some feedback on #2108? If that's
not a blocker, a release within a couple of weeks can be considered.
Although not fixing #1578 is questionable, and we need to revisit the LTS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion