A small factual correction:
On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 05:14:49 UTC+1, Johannes Schönberger wrote:
>
> And it seems the latest Ubuntu is still on 3.4...
>
This is not accurate - Ubuntu 16.04 (the LTS release that came out in April
this year), has Python 3.5:
http://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/p
Hi everyone,
First of all, I excitedly jumped on the bandwagon because Stefan mentioned
0.13, but I actually even I considered that a bit early for dropping Py2
when I read it. =) I would say that the right time to drop Py2 is either
0.15 or 1.0, and that we should follow a standard deprecation cy
On 10 August 2016 at 01:03, Emmanuelle Gouillart <
emmanuelle.gouill...@nsup.org> wrote:
> I completely agree that it would be great to obtain statistics about
> who uses Python 2.7 or 3.x but I can't see an easy way to do it. Could we
> have a button on the website linking to a small form asking
Hi Nelle
On 9 August 2016 at 18:55, Nelle Varoquaux
wrote:
> That implies that even ubuntu users will have to install python from
> another source than the package manager. Do you really want this? That
> means that only fairly advance python users will be able to use the
> latest scikit-image r
Regarding an estimation of which OS people are using, let me go back to
one of my favorite hobbies :-): looking at the analytics of
http://scikit-image.org/. What it says in terms of OSs:
- 54% of Windows users
- 26% of Linux users
- 20% of OSx users
These statistics are pretty stable over the pe
As stated earlier, a big -1 from my side on moving to all Python 3.x for 0.14
already. Not because I personally don't think it provides some benefits, but
let me explain:
I don't see enough of a benefit of replacing a few np.dot's with the @ syntax
or pure keyword based arguments for the few fu
On 9 August 2016 at 19:54, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Nelle Varoquaux
> wrote:
>>
>> On 9 August 2016 at 19:17, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Nelle Varoquaux
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 9 August 2016 at 17:28, Juan Nunez-
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Nelle Varoquaux
wrote:
> On 9 August 2016 at 19:17, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Nelle Varoquaux <
> nelle.varoqu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9 August 2016 at 17:28, Juan Nunez-Iglesias
> wrote:
> >> > @Emmanuelle I'
On 9 August 2016 at 19:17, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Nelle Varoquaux
> wrote:
>>
>> On 9 August 2016 at 17:28, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote:
>> > @Emmanuelle I'm probably among the ones pushing hardest for this, and I
>> > can
>> > tell you, I can't wait for this ch
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Nelle Varoquaux
wrote:
> On 9 August 2016 at 17:28, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote:
> > @Emmanuelle I'm probably among the ones pushing hardest for this, and I
> can
> > tell you, I can't wait for this change in policy, and would be sorely
> > disappointed by having t
On 9 August 2016 at 17:28, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote:
> @Emmanuelle I'm probably among the ones pushing hardest for this, and I can
> tell you, I can't wait for this change in policy, and would be sorely
> disappointed by having to work in an experimental branch of scikit-image.
> Both @-matmul an
@Emmanuelle I'm probably among the ones pushing hardest for this, and I can
tell you, I can't wait for this change in policy, and would be sorely
disappointed by having to work in an experimental branch of scikit-image.
Both @-matmul and keyword-only arguments are, imho, compelling reasons to
switc
Hi Ralf
On 9 August 2016 at 15:09, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> Hi Stefan, do you propose then to drop Python 3.4 at the same time (@ is
> >= 3.5)?
>
Yes, I guess I am. But if that's too much of a stretch, I will be open to
>= 3.4.
Stéfan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Stéfan van der Walt
wrote:
> Hi Emmanuelle
>
>
> On 9 August 2016 at 14:44, Emmanuelle Gouillart <
> emmanuelle.gouill...@nsup.org> wrote:
>
>
>> It may be a silly idea, but can't we do it the other way around, that is
>> have an experimental branch where develope
Hi Emmanuelle
On 9 August 2016 at 14:44, Emmanuelle Gouillart <
emmanuelle.gouill...@nsup.org> wrote:
> about backporting, what kind of backporting mechanism do you have in
> mind? Merging commits by hand, or something more elaborate?
>
Yes, I think backporting bug-fixes from time to time and ma
Hi Stéfan,
about backporting, what kind of backporting mechanism do you have in
mind? Merging commits by hand, or something more elaborate?
It may be a silly idea, but can't we do it the other way around, that is
have an experimental branch where developers who wish to write
Python3-only code can
16 matches
Mail list logo
