[Numpy-discussion] ANN: NumPy 1.5.1 release candidate 1
Tue Nov 2 07:36:07 CDT 2010
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Friedrich Romstedt
> Hi Ralf,
> 2010/11/1 Ralf Gommers <email@example.com>:
>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Friedrich Romstedt
>>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> I found some issues on Mac OS X 10.5 ppc in py2.5.4:
>> Can you please check if this takes care of all test failures you
>> reported: http://github.com/rgommers/numpy/commit/2ac0be7171f.
>> If not can you please adapt the patch a bit to make it work (should be
> Your patch was fine, except for that you spelled 'powerpc' as 'ppc'.
> This applied
> also to numpy/core/tests/test_umath_complex.py, see the commits here:
Thanks, good to know. I just guessed the 'ppc' part, since the stdlib
docs tell me nothing and I couldn't test it.
> I'm not sure if they should be marked as knownfailure instead of being
> skipped. Looks like legacy to me, as if knownfailureif didn't exist
> at the time the tests were written.
No, that code is less than a year old. And using knowfail is the
correct thing to do here.
> I don't know if there are PowerPC platforms out there which return
> "ppc" from ``platform.processor()``.
> Could this apply also to other files?
platform.processor is not used anywhere else, I guess because OS X
bugs that don't occur on all machines are mostly 32 vs 64-bit, not
i386 vs ppc.
> The naming of the branches is of course discussable. We can change
> this before pulling. Does it apply to 1.5.1 only or also to master?
Branch name doesn't matter, it should be a single fast-forward commit.
Applies to master, will update fix and send a pull request for that.
More information about the NumPy-Discussion