[Numpy-discussion] Re: Please consider dropping Python 3.9 support for Numpy 2.0

On Mon, 2024-05-06 at 09:17 +1000, Matti Picus wrote: > On 05/05/2024 11:32, Mark Harfouche wrote: > > > > > Thank you for considering this last minute request. I know it adds > > work at this stage. > > > > Mark > > > I think NumPy should not be the leader in dropping versions, rather > sh

[Numpy-discussion] Re: Please consider dropping Python 3.9 support for Numpy 2.0

On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 6:46 AM Sebastian Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2024-05-06 at 09:17 +1000, Matti Picus wrote: > > On 05/05/2024 11:32, Mark Harfouche wrote: > > > > but to me it makes sense to support it for the > > large 2.0 release. > > The release will not be without problems rippling throughou

[Numpy-discussion] Re: numpy on iOS

The Beeware (https://beeware.org/) developers build NumPy (and other binary extension packages) for mobile operating systems, both iOS and Android. You can see their scripts and build recipes here: https://github.com/beeware/mobile-forge In particular, you can see the patch they need to make to t

[Numpy-discussion] Re: numpy on iOS

I should also note that Beeware has a number of patches for the Python interpreter itself to get iOS support working. Fortunately, as of the upcoming Python 3.13 beta, those patches are all merged into CPython main and iOS becomes a Tier 3 supported platform: https://peps.python.org/pep-0730/ On

[Numpy-discussion] Re: next Documentation team meeting

Hi all, Our next Documentation Team meeting will happen on *Monday, May 6* at *11PM UTC*. If this time slot is inconvenient for you to join, please let me know in the replies or Slack and we will work something out. All are welcome - you don't need to already be a contributor to join. If you h

[Numpy-discussion] Re: next Documentation team meeting

Patrick Zamba wrote: > Hie, M. Pahari > > Kindly, reschedule me for another slot, for the one you sent me I won't be > able to attend. > > Thank you > > Patrick Hi Patrick, Thanks for letting me know. I will send around a poll for deciding on a new docs meeting time. Please indicate your prefe

[Numpy-discussion] Re: Please consider dropping Python 3.9 support for Numpy 2.0

On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 6:34 AM Mark Harfouche wrote: > > > On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 6:46 AM Sebastian Berg > wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2024-05-06 at 09:17 +1000, Matti Picus wrote: >> > On 05/05/2024 11:32, Mark Harfouche wrote: >> > >> > but to me it makes sense to support it for the >> > large 2.0 re

[Numpy-discussion] Re: Please consider dropping Python 3.9 support for Numpy 2.0

On Mon, 6 May 2024 at 19:59, Aaron Meurer wrote: > > On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 6:34 AM Mark Harfouche > wrote: > > > > I'm asking that you let Python 3.9 support disappear with 1.26, and not > > "drop a final version" before you decide to move on with 3.10+ only. > > I don't understand NumPy suppo

[Numpy-discussion] Re: Please consider dropping Python 3.9 support for Numpy 2.0

On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 10:42 PM Oscar Benjamin wrote: > On Mon, 6 May 2024 at 19:59, Aaron Meurer wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 6:34 AM Mark Harfouche > wrote: > > > > > > I'm asking that you let Python 3.9 support disappear with 1.26, and > not "drop a final version" before you decide

[Numpy-discussion] Re: Please consider dropping Python 3.9 support for Numpy 2.0

On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 3:05 PM Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 10:42 PM Oscar Benjamin > wrote: >> >> On Mon, 6 May 2024 at 19:59, Aaron Meurer wrote: >> > >> > On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 6:34 AM Mark Harfouche >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > I'm asking that you let Python 3.9 suppor

[Numpy-discussion] PR - can I get a new review?

Hi community, PR 26081 is about making numpy's ShapeType covariant and bound to a tuple of ints. The community has requested this occasionally in issue 16544 . I'm reaching out via the listserv because it's

[Numpy-discussion] Re: Please consider dropping Python 3.9 support for Numpy 2.0

On Tue, 7 May 2024, at 7:04 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > This problem could have been avoided by proper use of upper bounds. > Scikit-image 0.22 not including a `numpy<2.0` upper bound is a bug in > scikit-image (definitely for ABI reasons, and arguably also for API reasons). > It would really be u