> scipy: > one new failure, in test_nanmedian_all_axis > 250 calls to np.testing.rand (wtf), 92 calls to random_integers, 3 uses > of datetime64 with timezones. And for some reason the new numpy gives more > "invalid value encountered in greater"-type warnings.
One limitation of this approach, AFAIU, is that the downstream versions are pinned by whatever is available from anaconda, correct? Not a big deal per se, just something to keep in mind when looking at the report that there might be false positives. For scipy, for instance, this seems to test 0.16.1. Most (all?) of these are fixed in 0.17.0. At any rate, this is great regardless --- thank you! Cheers, Evgeni _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
