On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I agree with what you're arguing for here (as little impact as possible on > existing users), but your view of especially 1.6.x seems to be skewed by > regressions and changes that were either unintended or thought to be okay > because the affected numpy behavior was undocumented / off-label / untested. > The poor test coverage being the number one culprit (example regression: > http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/2078).
Thanks for the reminder... https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/323 -n _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
