[Numpy-discussion] Status of the 1.7 release
Mon Dec 17 10:17:59 CST 2012
I added a new issue that is a regression about numpy.ndindex() that we
already talked. But it was a duplicate, so I closed it. I think it
got lost as the ticket wasn't marked for 1.7 milestone. Ccan someone
do it? I don't have the right.
This regression break something in Theano. We could work around it,
this also break stuff in SciPy from a comment in that ticket.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Ralf Gommers <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Nathaniel Smith <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 16 Dec 2012 23:01, "Charles R Harris" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Ondřej Čertík <email@example.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Thanks Ralf and Nathan,
>> >> I have put high priority on the issues that need to be fixed before the
>> >> rc1.
>> >> There are now 4 issues:
>> >> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues?labels=priority%3A+high&milestone=3&page=1&state=open
>> >> I am working on the mingw one, as that one is the most difficult.
>> >> Ralf (or anyone else), do you know how to fix this one:
>> >> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/438
>> >> I am not very familiar with this part of numpy, so maybe you know how
>> >> to document it well.
>> >> The sooner we can fix these 4 issues, the sooner we can release.
>> > I believe mingw was updated last month to a new compiler version. I
>> > don't know what other changes there were, but it is possible that some
>> > problems have been fixed.
>> It'd be worth checking in case it allows us to get off the (incredibly
>> old) GCC that we currently require on windows. But that's a long-term
>> problem that we probably shouldn't be messing with for 1.7 purposes. afaict
>> all we need to do for 1.7 is switch to using our current POSIX code on win32
>> as well, instead of the (weird and broken) MS-specific API that we're
>> currently using. (Plus suppress some totally spurious warnings):
>> (Or I could be missing something, but I don't think any problems with that
>> solution have been discussed on the list anyway.)
> AFAICT Nathaniel's suggestion in the thread linked above is the way to go.
> Trying again to go to gcc 4.x doesn't sound like a good idea. Probably David
> C. already has a good idea about whether recent changes to MinGW have made a
> difference to the issue he ran into about a year ago.
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
More information about the NumPy-Discussion