On Jan 30, 2016 9:27 AM, "Ralf Gommers" <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >> >> It occurs to me that the best solution might be to put together a .travis.yml for the release branches that does: "for pkg in IMPORTANT_PACKAGES: pip install $pkg; python -c 'import pkg; pkg.test()'" >> This might not be viable right now, but will be made more viable if pypi starts allowing official Linux wheels, which looks likely to happen before 1.12... (see PEP 513) >> >> On Jan 29, 2016 9:46 AM, "Andreas Mueller" <t3k...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Is this the point when scikit-learn should build against it? >> >> Yes please! >> >> > Or do we wait for an RC? >> >> This is still all in flux, but I think we might actually want a rule that says it can't become an RC until after we've tested scikit-learn (and a list of similarly prominent packages). On the theory that RC means "we think this is actually good enough to release" :-). OTOH I'm not sure the alpha/beta/RC distinction is very helpful; maybe they should all just be betas. >> >> > Also, we need a scipy build against it. Who does that? >> >> Like Julian says, it shouldn't be necessary. In fact using old builds of scipy and scikit-learn is even better than rebuilding them, because it tests numpy's ABI compatibility -- if you find you *have* to rebuild something then we *definitely* want to know that. >> >> > Our continuous integration doesn't usually build scipy or numpy, so it will be a bit tricky to add to our config. >> > Would you run our master tests? [did we ever finish this discussion?] >> >> We didn't, and probably should... :-) > > Why would that be necessary if scikit-learn simply tests pre-releases of numpy as you suggested earlier in the thread (with --pre)? > > There's also https://github.com/MacPython/scipy-stack-osx-testing by the way, which could have scikit-learn and scikit-image added to it. > > That's two options that are imho both better than adding more workload for the numpy release manager. Also from a principled point of view, packages should test with new versions of their dependencies, not the other way around.
Sorry, that was unclear. I meant that we should finish the discussion, not that we should necessarily be the ones running the tests. "The discussion" being this one: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/6462#issuecomment-148094591 https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/6494 I'm not saying that the release manager necessarily should be running the tests (though it's one option). But the 1.10 experience seems to indicate that we need *some* process for the release manager to make sure that some basic downstream testing has happened. Another option would be keeping a checklist of downstream projects and making sure they've all checked in and confirmed that they've run tests before making the release. -n
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion