[SciPy-Dev] scipy.optimize.anneal - deprecation

Fri Oct 17 07:36:55 EDT 2014

> One of the reasons leading to the deprecation was the sub-optimality 
>of the implementation. As the situation was not fixed in several years, 
>it's better to deprecate it than ship it.
Is it better to have a sub-optimal implementation and documented as such as
opposed to no implementation at all?

Personally, working through the Python code was  a big help to really learn
the stuff. However, what do I know, I am a newbie and not sure what the
tribal norms are either.

Either way, thanks for the all the help.

-----Original Message-----
From: scipy-dev-bounces at scipy.org [mailto:scipy-dev-bounces at scipy.org] On
Behalf Of scipy-dev-request at scipy.org
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 1:00 PM
To: scipy-dev at scipy.org
Subject: SciPy-Dev Digest, Vol 132, Issue 18

Send SciPy-Dev mailing list submissions to
	scipy-dev at scipy.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	scipy-dev-request at scipy.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	scipy-dev-owner at scipy.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of SciPy-Dev digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: scipy.optimize.anneal - deprecation (Pauli Virtanen)
   2. Re: 0.14.1 and 0.15.0 release schedule (Julian Taylor)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 23:43:52 +0300
From: Pauli Virtanen <pav at iki.fi>
Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] scipy.optimize.anneal - deprecation
To: scipy-dev at scipy.org
Message-ID: <m1mma8$j2m$1 at ger.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252

13.10.2014, 02:27, Charles R Harris kirjoitti:
[clip]
> Looking at the tests at
> http://infinity77.net/global_optimization/multidimensional.html  the 
> scipy version of simulated annealing, SIMANN, performs horribly. 
> However, ANA seems to do pretty well. So the problem with scipy seems 
> to have been a poor version of the algorithm and probably we should just
fix that.

One of the reasons leading to the deprecation was the sub-optimality of the
implementation. As the situation was not fixed in several years, it's better
to deprecate it than ship it.

--
Pauli Virtanen

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:13:11 +0200
From: Julian Taylor <jtaylor.debian at googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] 0.14.1 and 0.15.0 release schedule
To: SciPy Developers List <scipy-dev at scipy.org>
Message-ID: <543EFF87.2030101 at googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252

Hi,
whats the status on 0.14.1? Is this still planned?

Debian is freezing on the 5. of November and I'd prefer to have 0.14.1
instead of 0.14.0 in. Though I could also package a git snapshot if you
don't think you'll do a release before then, just let me know.

Cheers,
Julian

On 18.09.2014 00:50, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Warren Weckesser
> <warren.weckesser at gmail.com <mailto:warren.weckesser at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com
>     <mailto:ralf.gommers at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>         Hi all,
> 
>         It's about time for a couple of releases.
> 
>         0.14.1 fixes some regressions as well as a lot of test failures
>         against numpy 1.9.0 (due to __numpy_ufunc__) removal. All known
>         regressions are fixed now, so I plan to tag it this weekend. If
>         there's anything really urgent that still needs to go in, please
>         speak up.
> 
>         For 0.15.0 there are still 17 issues/PRs, but most of those we
>         should be able to merge/fix relatively quickly. I propose the
>         following release schedule:
> 
>         - beta 1: 16 Sep
>         - release candidate 1: 4 Oct
>         - release candidate 2: 18 Oct (if needed)
>         - final release: 25 Oct
> 
>         Does that work for everyone?
> 
> 
> 
>     Works for me.  Thanks, Ralf.
> 
> 
> There are still a few issues to be solved (see
> https://github.com/scipy/scipy/milestones/0.15.0), so the timing has to
> shift a bit. I'll be offline for a week, so probably we can do the beta
> at the end of this month.
> 
> Ralf
> 
>  
> 
> 
>     Warren
> 
>      
> 
>         Are there issues/PRs that aren't under the 0.15.0 milestone but
>         have to go in?
> 
>         Cheers,
>         Ralf
> 
> 
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         SciPy-Dev mailing list
>         SciPy-Dev at scipy.org <mailto:SciPy-Dev at scipy.org>
>         http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
> 
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     SciPy-Dev mailing list
>     SciPy-Dev at scipy.org <mailto:SciPy-Dev at scipy.org>
>     http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
> 

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
SciPy-Dev mailing list
SciPy-Dev at scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev

End of SciPy-Dev Digest, Vol 132, Issue 18
******************************************