[IPython-dev] Starting to plan for 0.11 (this time for real)
Fri Oct 29 13:02:16 CDT 2010
Thanks for summarizing this. I think this sounds like a good plan.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Fernando Perez <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I know we've said several times that we should release 0.11 'soon', so
> I forgive anyone for laughing at this email. But don't ignore it,
> this time we mean it :)
> We now have a massive amount of new code in the pipeline, and it's
> really high time we start getting this out in the hands of users
> beyond those willing to run from a git HEAD. 0.11 will be a 'tech
> preview' release, especially because the situation with regards to the
> parallel code is a bit messy right now. But we shouldn't wait for too
> much longer.
> Brian and I tried to compile a list of the main things that need work
> before we can make a release, and this is our best estimate right
> - Unicode: this is totally broken and totally unacceptable. But I'm
> pretty sure with a few clean hours I can get it done. It's not super
> hard, just detail-oriented work that I need a quiet block of time to
> - Updating top-level entry points to use the new config system,
> especially the Qt console. Brian said he could tackle this one.
> - Final checks on the state of the GUI/event loop support. Things are
> looking fairly good from usage, but we have concerns that there may
> still be problems lurking just beneath the surface.
> - Continue/finish the displayhook discussion: we're well on our way on
> this, we just need to finish it up. We mark it here because it's an
> important part of the api and a good test case for how we want to
> expose this kind of functionality.
> - Move all payloads to pub channel. This is also a big api item that
> affects all clients, so we might as well get it right from the start.
> I can try to work on this.
> - James' web frontend: I'd really like to get that code in for early
> battle-testing, even though it's clear it's early functionality
> subject still to much evolution.
> That's all I have in my list. Anything else you can all think of?
> As for non-blockers, we have:
> - the parallel code is not in a good situation right now: we have a
> few regressions re. the Twisted 0.10.1 code (e.g. the SGE code isn't
> ported yet), the Twisted winhpc scheduler is only in 0.11, and while
> the new zmq tools are looking great, they are NOT production-ready
> quite yet. In summary, we'll have to warn in bright, blinking pink
> letters 1995-style, everyone who uses the parallel code in production
> systems to stick with the 0.10 series for a little longer. Annoying,
> yes, but unfortunately such is life.
> - our docs have unfortunately gone fairly stale in a few places. We
> have no docs for the new Qt console and a lot of information is partly
> or completely stale. This is an area where volunteers could make a
> huge difference: any help here has a big impact in letting the project
> better serve users, and doc pull requests are likely to be reviewed
> very quickly. Additionally, you don't need to know too much about the
> code's intimate details to help with documenting the user-facing
> Anything else?
> Plan: I'd love to get 0.11 out in the first week of December. John
> Hunter, Stefan van der Walt and I (all three contributors) will be at
> Scipy India in Hyderabad Dec 11-18, and there will be sprint time
> there. Ideally, we'd have a stable release out for potential sprint
> participants who want to hack on IPython to work from. It would also
> be a good way to wrap up a great year of development and de-stagnation
> of IPython, leaving us with a nice fresh ball of warm code to play
> with over the winter holidays.
> IPython-dev mailing list
Brian E. Granger, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Physics
Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo
More information about the IPython-dev