On 6 May 2011, at 07:53, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > >> Looks okay, and I agree that it's better to fix it now. The timing > >> is a bit unfortunate though, just after RC2. I'll have closer look > >> tomorrow and if it can go in, probably tag RC3. > >> > >> If in the meantime a few more people could test this, that would be > >> helpful. > >> > >> Ralf > > > > I agree, wish I had time to push this before rc2. I could add the > > explanatory comments > > mentioned above and switch to use the atleast_[12]d() solution, test > > that and push it > > in a couple of minutes, or should I better leave it as is now for > > testing? > > Quick follow-up: I just applied the above changes, added some tests to > cover Ben's test cases and tested this with 1.6.0rc2 on OS X 10.5 > i386+ppc > + 10.6 x86_64 (Python2.7+3.2). So I'd be ready to push it to my repo > and do > my (first) pull request... > > Go ahead, I'll have a look at it tonight. Thanks for testing on > several Pythons, that definitely helps.
Done, the request only appears on my repo https://github.com/dhomeier/numpy/ is that correct? If someone could test it on Linux and Windows as well... Cheers, Derek _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
