Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.10.3 release.

[Ralf Gommers]

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Charles R Harris 
wrote:
>
>
> The failed tests require pyrex, fortran, and swig. The refcount error
> comes and goes, probably the test isn't very good.  Ralf, is there any
> reason to keep the various extension building tests? They are very old.
>

There are f2py tests that are useful - if they fail then building anything
else with f2py fails as well. However those are all in f2py/tests/ IRRC,
not in distutils/tests.

>
> I don't know what the recommendation on using nosetests is,
>

Don't use it (it definitely gives test errors due to not having the
knownfailure plugin), use either runtests.py or numpy.test().


> but probably it is finding too many tests.
>

It's doing its job here in finding these though. It looks like these tests
need either fixing (the extensions aren't built) or removing. I'll have a
look tonight.

Ralf
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.10.3 release tomorrow, 1.11.x branch this month.

[Marten van Kerkwijk]

Hi Chuck, others,

A propos __numpy_ufunc__, what is the current status? Is it still the
undetermined result of the monster-thread (
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/5844 -- just found it again by
sorting by number of comments...)?

As noted by Stephan and myself when the decision was made to remove it from
1.10, for external libraries it would be really wonderful to have *any*
version of __numpy_ufunc__ in 1.11, as it provides great beneifts (instant
factor 2 improvement in speed for astropy quantities...). In the end, the
proposals were not that different, and, really, what is in current master
is quite good.

All the best,

Marten
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.10.3 release tomorrow, 1.11.x branch this month.

[CJ Carey]

I'll echo Marten's sentiments. I've found __numpy_ufunc__ as it exists in
the master branch to be quite useful in my experiments with sparse arrays (
https://github.com/perimosocordiae/sparray), and I think it'll be a net
benefit to scipy.sparse as well (despite the unpleasantness with __mul__).

-CJ

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk <
m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Chuck, others,
>
> A propos __numpy_ufunc__, what is the current status? Is it still the
> undetermined result of the monster-thread (
> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/5844 -- just found it again by
> sorting by number of comments...)?
>
> As noted by Stephan and myself when the decision was made to remove it
> from 1.10, for external libraries it would be really wonderful to have
> *any* version of __numpy_ufunc__ in 1.11, as it provides great beneifts
> (instant factor 2 improvement in speed for astropy quantities...). In the
> end, the proposals were not that different, and, really, what is in current
> master is quite good.
>
> All the best,
>
> Marten
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.10.3 release tomorrow, 1.11.x branch this month.

[Charles R Harris]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 6:17 PM, CJ Carey  wrote:

> I'll echo Marten's sentiments. I've found __numpy_ufunc__ as it exists in
> the master branch to be quite useful in my experiments with sparse arrays (
> https://github.com/perimosocordiae/sparray), and I think it'll be a net
> benefit to scipy.sparse as well (despite the unpleasantness with __mul__).
>
> -CJ
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk <
> m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Chuck, others,
>>
>> A propos __numpy_ufunc__, what is the current status? Is it still the
>> undetermined result of the monster-thread (
>> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/5844 -- just found it again by
>> sorting by number of comments...)?
>>
>> As noted by Stephan and myself when the decision was made to remove it
>> from 1.10, for external libraries it would be really wonderful to have
>> *any* version of __numpy_ufunc__ in 1.11, as it provides great beneifts
>> (instant factor 2 improvement in speed for astropy quantities...). In the
>> end, the proposals were not that different, and, really, what is in current
>> master is quite good.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>
Well, I'm trying to gin up some action on the topic ;) The last time I
brought it up it vanished into the mists. I don't think it would be a lot
of work to finish things up and have comtemplated doing it myself if no one
else steps up. I want to make the 1.11 branch this month whatever happens.

Chuck
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.10.3 release tomorrow, 1.11.x branch this month.

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk
 wrote:
> Hi Chuck, others,
>
> A propos __numpy_ufunc__, what is the current status? Is it still the
> undetermined result of the monster-thread
> (https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/5844 -- just found it again by
> sorting by number of comments...)?

Yeah, that's about where everyone collapsed in exhaustion last time :-).

> As noted by Stephan and myself when the decision was made to remove it from
> 1.10, for external libraries it would be really wonderful to have *any*
> version of __numpy_ufunc__ in 1.11, as it provides great beneifts (instant
> factor 2 improvement in speed for astropy quantities...). In the end, the
> proposals were not that different, and, really, what is in current master is
> quite good.

I think everyone's agreed that having __numpy_ufunc__ is a great
thing; the problem is sorting out the details, which is work that
takes some time and attention.

At this point I think it's extremely unlikely that that time and
attention will be mustered in time for 1.11, just because like Chuck
says, that's 2 weeks from now, and none of us have magic wands to get
the work done. We could potentially get it into 1.11 by pushing the
release back, but that wouldn't really help anything: it wouldn't make
the work happen any sooner by the calendar; it would just delay
releasing all the other stuff that's in master.

I've also been feeling frustrated and guilty about the status of
__numpy_ufunc__; I very much want to get back to it, but have been too
far underwater from other commitments :-(.

One possible next step, if someone does have the
time/energy/motivation, would be to review the outcome of that thread
and write up a short summary of where we got to. Basically cutting out
all the back-and-forth and dead-ends to say "here are the 2-3 main
options that are still on the table, here are the details of the best
version of each, here are the trade-offs".

-n

-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion