Hi Rebecca, Julian and all science minded pythonistas of debian, great and small!
I like your correspondence about upgrading from version 1.5 of pandas to 2.1. It's open, scientific and explores the ideal of proceeding wisely in a matter of public interest. My humble thoughts are: 1.) Rebecca: *Why* did you write that you'd like to move forward with the pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 transition? What's your reason? 2.) What may be the advantage of migrating to version 3.0 of Cython? 3.) The following one-liner suggests 44 debian packages might be affected by the breaks Rebecca said would be caused by pandas 2.x: $ for s in augur cnvkit dyda emperor esda mirtop pymatgen pyranges python-anndata python-biom-format python-cooler python-nanoget python-skbio python-ulmo q2-quality-control q2-demux q2-taxa q2-types q2templates sklearn-pandas ; do apt-cache search "$s" ; done | less 4.) The break that worries me the most is sklearn-pandas, because it seems to me that sklearn is popular and fundamental. Comment welcome, Kingsley On 12/10/2023 20:16, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 01:06:01PM +0000, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: > > I'd like to move forward with the pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 transition reasonably > > soon. > > > > Given that pandas 2.x is *not* required for Python 3.12 (but is required for > > Cython 3.0), should we wait for the Python 3.12 transition to be done first? > > Well, I have seen at least one package that has an RC bug for the > Python 3.12 transition that might be because it's still using an old > version of cython3 :( So it's a bit of chicken-and-egg - having Cython > 3.0 might be very helpful. But then there is this list of 28 packages > broken by pandas 2.x. On the other hand, these will need fixing at > some point soon anyway, so I'd be in favour of doing the pandas > transition now, which will allow Cython 3.0 to move into unstable. > > Just my 2 cents' worth... > > Best wishes, > > Julian > -- Time is the fire in which we all burn.