Steve, I've updated the roadmap with a more sensible date: I think we're
really going to release 2.2 in October/November. I was reflecting the
other day why our development cycle is too long (a year between
releases) and I think it's because it takes from 6 to 8 eight months to
stabilize the current release and only then we start thinking on a new
one, which takes another 6 months to develop.
Cheers,
Carlos
El 26/04/12 10:14, Steve escribió:
So, April is almost over... This most likely means the 2.2 release is
delayed, right? Can someone update the Roadmap to reflect any changes
in schedule? Has there ever been any discussion about what the
debugging is going to look like or who will be working on it?
-Steve
On Thursday, January 19, 2012 6:56:24 AM UTC-6, Carlos Córdoba wrote:
Another thing I was forgetting:
Before starting 2.2 we should really have to decide if we stay in
googlecode or switch to github, but let's discuss that in the other
thread we have about it
El 19/01/12 07:52, Carlos Córdoba escribió:
> Hi,
>
> El 17/01/12 17:18, Pierre Raybaut escribió:
>> 2012/1/17 Steve<>:
>>> I'd like to get some clarification on what specific issues will be
>> Me too ;)
>>
>> Actually this matter has not yet been discussed within the
>> "development team".
>> Regarding v2.2, the next step is to freeze the v2.1 repository and
>> really switch to maintenance mode (we have introduced more features
>> than we should have done since v2.1.0: this is not improving
>> stability...).
>
> That's been me :-) Sorry for that... Since we have not discussed
about
> 2.2 I thought I could add simple features to 2.1 (well, automatic
> quotes have proven to be not so simple!).
>
> Anyway, we could really freeze 2.1 whenever you feel is the
right time
> Pierre. I have in the making or as ideas a lot of things I would
like
> to see for 2.2:
>
> 1. Ipdb support for Ipython console
> 2. Add numpydoc and latex extensions to the Object Inspector
> 3. Add tabs and a homepage to the Object Inspector
> 4. Completely integrate ipython qtconsole in Spyder. For this we
would
> need to create a config page, add tabs to the plugin, send code
from
> the Editor and connect it to the Object Inspector and Variable
> Explorer (I know this last one is working but kind of as a hack...)
> 5. Add a matlab-cell like feature.
> 6. Improve Rope introspection features (to avoid things like the
bug
> reported by Steve, where the Editor almost freezes during code
> completion)
>
>> Then we may begin to work on v2.2. So we will have to
>> discuss the priorities depending on what we can do
>> (availability/skills) and on what we want to do. Anyway, I
think that
>> our motivation is always a combination of what we like to do and of
>> what we need individually. So we'll see if someone will take
care of
>> debugging features or not.
>
> Although I almost never use debugging (old school guy, who uses
> print's all over the place) I think we could take a look at Pudb
> (https://github.com/inducer/pudb
<https://github.com/inducer/pudb>) for ideas on how to create a good
> and robust Debugging plugin.
>
> Cheers,
> Carlos
>
>>
>>> addressed with regards to debugging in 2.2. Will there be a break
>>> point widget? Execution Stack widget? What will debugging
look like
>>> when 2.2 is done?
>>>
>>> I was looking through some spyder code the other day and saw the
>>> function open_in_spyder() that extracts the __file__ variable
from a
>>> module. Is there any chance that under some circumstances
__file__
>>> could be all lower case? Maybe that's somehow the cause of issues
>>> #612 and #634? Just a random idea I thought I would throw out
there.
>> No, this function is only used for a Spyder console (InternalShell)
>> embedded into a Qt application:. Thanks to this function, we
can link
>> the console to the Spyder main window from which it was
executed. More
>> precisely, when clicking on a traceback link within an embedded
>> Spyder's console, it opens the corresponding file at the right line
>> number within Spyder's editor.
>>
>> -Pierre
>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google
>>> Groups "spyder" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> [email protected]
<mailto:spyderlib%[email protected]>.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/spyderlib?hl=en
<http://groups.google.com/group/spyderlib?hl=en>.
>>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "spyder" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/spyderlib/-/Yf2cNYQlIrUJ.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/spyderlib?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"spyder" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/spyderlib?hl=en.
