[SciPy-Dev] Timing of SciPy 1.0

[Eric Q]

The timeline you suggest and the goals for signal sound good to me. I've
been pretty tied up lately, and am traveling for the next two weeks, but
after that I intend on attacking the filtering API (especially second order
section support).

Eric Q.

On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 16:22 Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Starting with the summary of my email of earlier today: I'd like to pick a
> time for when we release SciPy 1.0, and what is still essential to do for
> that version number.
>
> We've discussed this a couple of times before [1,2].  We're now at the
> point where most of the major gaps have been filled though, so it looks to
> me like it's time to just pick a date for it (either after or instead of
> 0.19.0) and then fix up the last things that we think we really need for a
> 1.0 release.
>
> Here are the things that I see as essential:
> - Getting project organization in order: governance and CoC at least (see
> my other email of today).
> - scipy.signal: clean up the messes in wavelets and B-splines.
> - scipy.signal: unified filter API [3]
> - scipy.spatial: remove Python implementation of KDTree, just keep cKDTree
> - scipy.interpolate: not sure of the details, but I think there are some
> new interpolator classes and a spline PR that aren't quite finished?
> - Remove some deprecated items (weave is the biggest one), and decide now
> if there's anything else we need to deprecate.
> - Merge or close more PRs.  We've stabilized them at around 120-130 open
> ones, but that's not really good enough if there are (almost) finished PRs
> that no one has looked at in a year.  This may be the single biggest task.
>
> We shouldn't make the above list too long, otherwise we won't get there.
> Really, SciPy is production quality software (with a few dusty corners), so
> we should limit ourselves to listing what is essential here.
>
> Timing: I suspect that we want to deprecate some more things, and that 4
> months is a little too short to get to the point where we want to be.  So I
> would propose to still do a 0.19.0, make sure that all deprecations are in
> there, merge PRs quite aggressively for 0.19.0 as well, and then plan 1.0
> as the next release (can be shorter than 6 months after 0.19.0).  So maybe
> Nov/Dec for 0.19.0 and say March '17 for 1.0.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ralf
>
> [1] https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/2908
> [2] https://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/2013-September/019238.html
> [3] https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/6137
>
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev at scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20160904/260f9b0b/attachment.html>