[Numpy-discussion] Schedule for 1.5.1?

[josef.pktd at gmail.com]

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Charles R Harris
<charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:12 AM, <josef.pktd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Charles R Harris
>> <charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Ralf Gommers
>> > <ralf.gommers at googlemail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Pierre GM <pgmdevlist at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Just asking,
>> >>> Should I backport some bugs that were corrected in 2.0 for numpy.ma ?
>> >>> I
>> >>> don't have any particular in mind, but I'm sure there must be some...
>> >>>
>> >> That would be helpful. Please backport any bug fixes that you think are
>> >> important.
>> >>
>> >
>> > IIRC, there was also a fix that Josef wanted in one of the stats
>> > functions
>> > before 1.5 but I don't remember which. Josef?
>>
>> Not sure, The only things that I remember right now is that Alan
>> wanted to have ddof instead of bias in cov for consistency in names
>> across functions, and the usual
>>
>> >>> np.nansum([])
>> 1.#QNAN
>> >>> np.nansum([np.nan])
>> 1.#QNAN
>>
>> Both will change current behavior and might need a depreciation cycle.
>>
>> I have to see if a search through the mailing list turns something up.
>>
>
> I think it was something about Pareto...

Ok I remember, Pareto is actually Lomax or Pareto second kind, and
should be renamed. The proposal was to rename the current pareto to
pareto2 and create a new pareto that corrects location by one.

In the meantime I discovered that Lomax is actually nicer to work with
than Pareto one, so it's mainly a question of terminology/names and
documentation. Just calling it pareto is very misleading.

Josef

>
> Chuck
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>