[Numpy-discussion] 1.9.0 release runup

[Ralf Gommers]

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Sebastian Berg
<sebastian at sipsolutions.net>wrote:

> On So, 2014-03-23 at 07:26 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >         On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Charles R Harris
> >         <charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
> >                 Hi All,
> >
> >
> >                 It is time to start looking forward to the 1.9.0
> >                 release. Currently there are some 76 open PRs and they
> >                 keep rolling in, which is good,
> >
> >
> >         To make the PR list a bit more manageable, I would suggest to
> >         start closing the ones which are not in a state to get merged
> >         and haven't seen activity by the author for >3 months. And add
> >         in the dev guide that this is normal policy and that authors
> >         are free to reopen the PR when they continue working on it.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd feel better about doing that if PR's were reviewed and dealt with
> > on a regular basis, but we aren't quite there yet. That said, I'd like
> > to keep the number down in the 30-40 range.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >                 but we need to decide on what is important for 1.9 and
> >                 what can be put off to 1.10 because otherwise we will
> >                 never finish. The datetime problems and some of the
> >                 deprecations/futurewarnings that were present in 1.8
> >                 need to be dealt with. The nanmedian stuff will make a
> >                 nice addition to the nan functions. Apart from those,
> >                 if you have a PR or fix that you think needs to be in
> >                 1.9, please make it known.
> >
> >
> >
> >         The boolean subtract and ellipsis indexing deprecations
> >         probably need reconsidering. I get 78 test errors right now
> >         because of those if I test scipy master against numpy master.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > That's a lot of errors. Do you think they should be reverted
> > permanently or just for 1.9?
>

Temporarily probably. Assuming they were a good idea to start with.


> Good question. Just to note, I don't mind reverting/removing these. I
> was somewhat aware that the double ellipsis caused a lot scipy failures,
> but they seemed mostly in the tests with code like `arr[..., ...]` and I
> didn't check if it might be more trouble then gain.
>

IIRC we had something like this before with the safe casting changes in
1.6.x. We could do the following:
1. fix the issues seen in scipy (and scikits etc.) now.
2. revert this change for 1.9.x so it doesn't cause issues with released
versions.
3. re-introduce the deprecations in a year or so. In a year scipy will have
2 released versions with the fixes from (1).

Ralf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20140323/b1922493/attachment.html>