[Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch
Thu Jun 21 14:53:13 CDT 2012
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Wes McKinney <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Ralf Gommers
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Travis Oliphant <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > wrote:
> >> I thought it was clear we were doing a 1.7 release before SciPy. It
> >> seems pretty urgent that we get something out sooner than later. I
> >> there is never enough time to do all the things we want to do.
> >> There is time before the first Release candidate to make changes on the
> >> 1.7.x branch. If you want to make the changes on master, and just
> >> the Pull requests, Ondrej can make sure they are added to the 1.7.x.
> >> by Monday. We can also delay the first Release Candidate by a few
> days to
> >> next Wednesday and then bump everything 3 days if that will help.
> >> will be a follow-on 1.8 release before the end of the year --- so there
> >> time to make changes for that release as well. The next release will
> >> take a year to get out, so we shouldn't feel pressured to get
> >> in this release.
> > What about http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/2108? Someone needs
> to at
> > least answer the question of how much of datetime is unusable on Windows
> > with the current code. If that's not a lot then perhaps this is not a
> > blocker, but we did consider it one until now.....
> pandas has become a heavy consumer of datetime64 recently, and we
> haven't had any issues using VS2003 and VS2008, but haven't tested
> heavily against NumPy compiled with mingw outside of the version
> shipped in Enthought Python Distribution (the test suite passes fine,
> last time I checked).
Thanks Wes. It's indeed a MinGW-specific issue. EPD ships MinGW 4.5.2,
which should work but has issues when producing binary installers that
aren't yet resolved AFAIK. David C. last reported on that a few months ago
that he didn't see an easy solution. All releases until now have been done
with MinGW 3.4.5, which has a datetime problem.
So we still need a confirmation about whether current issues with 3.4.5 are
acceptable, or we need a fix or another way of creating binaries.
> > Of the other tickets (http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/report/3) it would
> > also be good to get an assessment of which ones are critical. Perhaps
> > of them are and the branch is in good shape for a release, but some of
> > segfaults would be nice to have fixed. Debian multi-arch support too, as
> > discussed on this list recently.
> > Ralf
> > _______________________________________________
> > NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion