On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Ralf Gommers < >> ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Charles R Harris < >>> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 2:46 AM, Ralf Gommers < >>>> ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Charles R Harris < >>>>> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Given the amount of new stuff coming in 1.7 and the slip in it's >>>>>> schedule, I wonder if it would be worth putting out a 1.6.2 release with >>>>>> fixes for einsum, ticket 1578, perhaps some others. My reasoning is that >>>>>> the fall releases of Fedora, Ubuntu are likely to still use 1.6 and they >>>>>> might as well use a somewhat fixed up version. The downside is located >>>>>> and >>>>>> backporting fixes is likely to be a fair amount of work. A 1.7 release >>>>>> would be preferable, but I'm not sure when we can make that happen. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Travis still sounded hopeful of being able to resolve the 1.7 issues >>>>> relatively soon. On the other hand, even if that's done in one month we'll >>>>> still miss Debian stable and a 1.6.2 release won't be *that* much work. >>>>> >>>>> Let's go for it I would say. >>>>> >>>>> Aiming for a RC on May 2nd and final release on May 16th would work >>>>> for me. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I count 280 BUG commits since 1.6.1, so we are going to need to thin >>>> those out. >>>> >>> >>> Indeed. We can discard all commits related to NA and datetime, and then >>> we should find some balance between how important the fixes are and how >>> much risk there is that they break something. I agree with the couple of >>> backports you've done so far, but I propose to do the rest via PRs. >>> >> > Charles, did you have some practical way in mind to select these commits? > We could split it up by time range or by submodules for example. I'd prefer > the latter. You would be able to do a better job of the commits touching > numpy/core than I. How about you do that one and the polynomial module, and > I do the rest? > > I'll give it a shot. I thought the first thing I would try is a search on tickets. We'll also need to track things and I haven't thought of a good way to do that apart from making a list and checking things off. I don't think there was too much polynomial fixing, mostly new stuff, but I'd like to use the current documentation. I don't know how you manage that for releases. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
