On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi, > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Charles R Harris > >> > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hi All, > >> >> > >> >> I'm thinking of making the 1.8.x branch next Sunday. Any complaints, > >> >> thoughts? > >> > > >> > > >> > First thought: thanks a lot for doing this. > >> > >> I'm afraid I don't understand the discussion on timezones in > >> datetime64, but I have the impression that those who do think it needs > >> an urgent decision and some action for the short term. Is that right, > >> datetimers? > >> > >> If that's so, and there are worthwhile changes that are practical in > >> the next few weeks, it seems reasonable to wait. > >> > > > > My impression is that we will have something for 1.9. If it comes in for > > 1.8, fine. But I think it is still under development. Hopefully the 1.9 > > release will come out next spring. > > OK - then I guess you are saying it is up you, our datetimer friends, > to make a proposal and timetable and implementation, if y'all think it > can be done in the next few weeks, > My impression: there's a reasonable amount of agreement on what has to be done, but no one has stepped up to do the work. It doesn't look like something that should block a release, because there's not a huge amount of interest and the API is already labeled 'experimental'. So I don't really see an issue in releasing 1.8 with the same behavior as 1.7. Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
