On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Anne Archibald <archib...@astron.nl> wrote:
> Do we want a deprecation-like approach, so that eventually people who want > replicability will specify versions, and everyone else gets bug fixes and > improvements? This would presumably take several major versions, but it > might avoid people getting unintentionally trapped on this version. > > Incidentally, bug fixes are complicated: if a bug fix uses more or fewer > raw random numbers, it breaks repeatability not just for the call that got > fixed but for all successive random number generations. > Reminder: we are bottom or inline posting > > > Anne > > On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 5:04 PM <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Alan G Isaac <alan.is...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 5/24/2015 8:47 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: >>> > Values only change if you leave out the call to seed() >>> >>> >>> OK, but this claim seems to conflict with the following language: >>> "the global RandomState object should use the latest implementation of >>> the methods". >>> I take it that this is what Nathan meant by >>> "I think this is just a bug in the description of the proposal here, not >>> in the proposal itself". >>> >>> So, is the correct phrasing >>> "the global RandomState object should use the latest implementation of >>> the methods, unless explicitly seeded"? >>> >> >> that's how I understand it. >> >> I don't see any problems with the clarified proposal for the use cases >> that I know of. >> >> Can we choose the version also for the global random state, for example >> to fix both version and seed in unit tests, with version > 0? >> >> >> BTW: I would expect that bug fixes are still exempt from backwards >> compatibility. >> >> fixing #5851 should be independent of the version, (without having >> looked at the issue) >> > I skimmed the issue. In a strict sense it's not really a bug, the user doesn't get wrong numbers, he or she gets Not A Number. So there are no current usages that use the function in that range. Josef > >> (If you need to replicate bugs, then use an old version of a package.) >> >> Josef >> >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alan >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list >>> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NumPy-Discussion mailing list >> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >> > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion