On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Travis Oliphant <tra...@continuum.io>wrote:
> There is an issue with the NumPy 1.7 release that we all need to > understand. Doesn't including the missing-data attributes in the NumPy > structure in a released version of NumPy basically commit to including > those attributes in NumPy 1.8? > We clearly labeled NA as experimental, so some changes are to be expected. But not complete removal - so yes, if we release them they should stay in some form. > I'm not comfortable with that, is everyone else? One possibility is to > move those attributes to a C-level sub-class of NumPy. > That's the first time I've heard this. Until now, we have talked a lot about adding bitmasks and API changes, not about complete removal. My assumption was that the experimental label was enough. From Nathaniel's reaction I gathered the same. It looks like too many conversations on this topic are happening off-list. Ralf > I have heard from a few people that they are not excited by the growth of > the NumPy data-structure by the 3 pointers needed to hold the masked-array > storage. This is especially true when there is talk to potentially add > additional attributes to the NumPy array (for labels and other > meta-information). If you are willing to let us know how you feel > about this, please speak up. > > Mark Wiebe will be in Austin for about 3 months. He and I will be hashing > some of this out in the first week or two. We will present any proposal > and ask questions to this list before acting. We will be using some > phone calls and face-to-face communications to increase the bandwidth and > speed of the conversations (not to exclude anyone). If you would like to > be part of the in-person discussions let me know -- or just make your views > known here --- they will be taken seriously. > > The goal is consensus for any major change in NumPy. If we can't get > consensus, then we vote on this list and use a super-majority. If we > can't get a super-majority, then except in rare circumstances we can't move > forward. Heavy users of NumPy get higher voting privileges. > > My perspective is that we don't have consensus on the current additions to > the NumPy data-structure to have the current additional attributes on the > NumPy data-structure be included for long-term release. > > Best, > > -Travis > > > > > > On Mar 25, 2012, at 6:27 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Charles R Harris < >> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> There several problems with numpy master that need to be fixed before a >>> release can be considered. >>> >>> 1. Datetime on windows with mingw. >>> 2. Bus error on SPARC, ticket #2076. >>> 3. NA and real/complex views of complex arrays. >>> >>> Number 1 has been proved to be particularly difficult, any help or >>> suggestions for that would be much appreciated. The current work has been >>> going in pull request 214 <https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/214>. >>> >>> This isn't to say that there aren't a ton of other things that need >>> fixing or that we can skip out on the current stack of pull requests, but I >>> think it is impossible to consider a release while those three problems are >>> outstanding. >>> >> Why do you consider (2) a blocker? Not saying it's not important, but >> there are eight other open tickets with segfaults. Some are more esoteric >> than other, but I don't see why for example #1713 and #1808 are less >> important than this one. >> >> #1522 provides a patch that fixes a segfault by the way, could use a >> review. >> >> > I wasn't aware of the other segfaults, I'd like to get them all fixed... > The list was meant to elicit additions. > > I don't know where the missed floating point errors come from, but they > are somewhat dependent on the compiler doing the right thing and hardware > support. I'd welcome any insight into why we get them on SPARC (underflow) > and Windows (overflow). The windows buildbot doesn't seem to be updating > correctly since it is still missing the combinations method that is now > part of the test module. > > Chuck > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion