On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Ralf Gommers > <ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com>wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Charles R Harris < >> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Pauli Virtanen <p...@iki.fi> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Should we set a date for a bugfix 1.5.1 release? There are some bugs >>>> that >>>> would be nice to sort out in the 1.5.x series: >>>> >>>> Any Python versions: >>>> >>>> - #1605 (Cython vs. PEP-3118 issue: raising exceptions with active >>>> cython buffers caused undefined behavior. Breaks Sage.) >>>> - #1617 (Ensure complex(np.longcomplex(...)) doesn't drop the imag part) >>>> - Fix doc build >>>> >>>> Python 3 specific: >>>> >>>> - #1604 (//-issue in distutils; infinite loop in some cases :) >>>> - #1609 (dotblas was never used on Python 3) >>>> - #1610 (fromfile/tofile did not stay in sync with Python 3 file handle >>>> position -- breaks e.g. scipy.io pretty badly) >>>> - f2py startup script didn't run properly on Py3 >>>> >>>> Not so many fixes so far, but I'd like to see a Numpy release with #1610 >>>> fixed before releasing Scipy with Python 3 support. Since 2.0.0 breaks >>>> binary compatibility and merging the refactoring back may take some >>>> time, >>>> it would be nice to have another 1.5.x release. >>>> >>>> Ralf & c, opinions? I'd maybe suggest somewhere on the Oct/Nov axis. >>>> >>>> >>> A 1.5.1 release soon would be good. All the issues above are already >> committed, is there anything else that needs to go in? If not, I think an RC >> by the end of next week (10/17) and release by the end of the month should >> be possible. >> >> The one bug that I want to have fixed is #1399, which causes build >> problems for scipy on OS X. >> >> Sounds good. I also have some stuff I'd like to add but won't have much >>> time before Nov. But whatever looks good to Ralf will work for me. >>> >> >> Any specific issues you have in mind? >> >> > No, I just wanted to include the Laguerre and Hermite polynomials and add a > domain keyword to the linspace method of the polynomial template. But I > don't think these are pressing needs. > > These don't seem very appropriate for a bugfix release anyway. I trust your code will be in very good shape when you add it, but let's not start breaking our own rules for what can and cannot go in. Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
