Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 18:23, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: What about python version? Do we want to bump that up from 2.4? Only if it were *really* necessary for the Python 3 port. Otherwise, I would resist the urge. I don't think it's necessary for that. -- Pauli Virtanen ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Pauli Virtanen p...@iki.fi wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 18:23, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: What about python version? Do we want to bump that up from 2.4? Only if it were *really* necessary for the Python 3 port. Otherwise, I would resist the urge. I don't think it's necessary for that. -- I'm trying to follow this discussion as good as I can. Please tell me, is the planned ABI change including the Addition of a dict object to all NumPy objects I was asking about recently. (I'm mostly referring to an old thread of Aug 2008: http://www.mail-archive.com/numpy-discussion@scipy.org/msg11898.html ) Oh, and is there a proposed name for that attribute (on the Python side) ? Regards, Sebastian Haase ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:16 AM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: Charles R Harris wrote: I don't see any struct definitions there, it looks clean. Any struct defined outside numpy/core/include is fine to change at will as far as ABI is concerned anyway, so no need to check anything :) Thanks for the clarification. I just double checked the svn diff (r7308), and I did not touch anything in numpy/core/include. Darren ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you are blue in the face, but without real data to premise them on, they are no better than the gut feelings. They can often be significantly worse if the strength of the logic gets confused with the strength of the premise. I need to frame this (or make a sig to put it in, the internet equivalent of a wooden frame :). Thank you, Robert. Cheers, f ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Hi, On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Fernando Perez fperez@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you are blue in the face, but without real data to premise them on, they are no better than the gut feelings. They can often be significantly worse if the strength of the logic gets confused with the strength of the premise. I need to frame this (or make a sig to put it in, the internet equivalent of a wooden frame :). Thank you, Robert. Yes, except that, at its most extreme, it renders reasonable argument pointless, and leads to resolving disputes by authority rather than discussion. Of course we don't work or think in realm that can be cleared of bias or error, but it would be difficult be a scientist and fail to notice that - agreeing - things that really should be true, aren't true and - disagreeing - despite all the threatening brackets, reasoned argument, and careful return to data, do work in increasing our understanding. See you, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On 11 February 2010 09:52, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: we don't stand much to lose by naming this next ABI-breaking release 1.5. Except the accepted policy will be discarded and we will have to start all over again. We can't change policy on a whim and still maintain that we *have* a policy. We won't have one. But we can have long discussions... Although one has been proposed, it has not been strictly implemented otherwise this problem wouldn't exist. ...this should be purely technical IMO. There are well established rules here: Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0. I'm going with the element of least surprise: no one will be surprised when 1.5 is released with ABI changes (it's been done that way for a long time), but they will be surprised to see that 2.0 is not the Big Thing it was promised to be. Nothing we can't fix with some good PR, though :) Cheers Stéfan ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: ...this should be purely technical IMO. There are well established rules here: Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0. It would be simple if it were not for the obligation of getting it soon, in a matter of weeks. This means fixing any fundamental issue (e.g. to get a more maintainable ABI) is totally out of reach, and that we will have to maintain several branches at the same time, which I think everybody agree we lack the manpower for. David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Hi, Just a comment: I would like to point out that there is (necessarily) some arbitrary threshold to who is being recognized as people who are actively writing the code. Over the last year, I have posted fixes for multiple bugs and extended the ufunc wrapping mechanisms (__array_prepare__) which were included in numpy-1.4.0, and have also been developing the quantities package, which is intimately tied up with numpy's development. I don't think that makes me a major contributor like you or Chuck etc., but I am heavily invested in numpy's development and an active contributor. Yes - I think that's a valid point - that there is a spectrum in our contributions to numpy, and it is not possible to divide us very clearly into those whose opinions count and those don't. There's code contribution, but there is also commitment and investment. These should also have their weight, in a healthy community. Best, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za: On 11 February 2010 09:52, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0. I'm going with the element of least surprise: no one will be surprised when 1.5 is released with ABI changes I'll buy you a doughnut if that turns out to be correct. Darren ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On 11 February 2010 15:38, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za: On 11 February 2010 09:52, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0. I'm going with the element of least surprise: no one will be surprised when 1.5 is released with ABI changes I'll buy you a doughnut if that turns out to be correct. Now I wish I said few people instead :) As I read the discussion, I realised that not many people (including developers) were aware of the versioning policy. Since we did not follow the policy in the past, there is no precedent (hence, little surprise). If we make enough noise (release notes, notification on sourceforge, post on list, message in installer, etc.) upon releasing 1.5, that should be ample warning, and it may also be a good trial run for numpy 2.0. Another suggestion could be to go the Mayavi2 route, with numpy2 being the completely redesigned library. Whether that is sane, I don't know. Either way, I am quite happy to follow the lead of the release manager for 1.3.9/1.4.1/2.0. Regards Stéfan ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za On 11 February 2010 15:38, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za: On 11 February 2010 09:52, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0. I'm going with the element of least surprise: no one will be surprised when 1.5 is released with ABI changes I'll buy you a doughnut if that turns out to be correct. Now I wish I said few people instead :) As I read the discussion, I realised that not many people (including developers) were aware of the versioning policy. Since we did not follow the policy in the past, there is no precedent (hence, little surprise). How do precedents get established? If we make enough noise (release notes, notification on sourceforge, post on list, message in installer, etc.) upon releasing 1.5, that should be ample warning, and it may also be a good trial run for numpy 2.0. The major version number is unrelated to features, it is an ABI marker, not a feature marker. If one so much as breathes on the ABI, the major version number needs to change. Another suggestion could be to go the Mayavi2 route, with numpy2 being the completely redesigned library. Whether that is sane, I don't know. Either way, I am quite happy to follow the lead of the release manager for 1.3.9/1.4.1/2.0. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:05 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: ...this should be purely technical IMO. There are well established rules here: Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0. It would be simple if it were not for the obligation of getting it soon, in a matter of weeks. This means fixing any fundamental issue (e.g. to get a more maintainable ABI) is totally out of reach, and that we will have to maintain several branches at the same time, which I think everybody agree we lack the manpower for. Whatever we do, I don't see how we are going to realistically maintain two separate branches. I'm nervous about the implication of going to NumPy 2.0, but as Stephan mentions, it is just a matter of P.R. If we put out appropriate notices and follow up with a 2.1 release near SciPy, then NumPy 3.0 can happen when we get the energy to fix the ABI questions and we don't imply that there will be a continuation of the 1.X series (i.e. the 2.0 is to indicate the ABI breakage requiring re-compilation). The information I gathered (on this list and in private mails) indicates to me that it is still pretty split as to whether to number 1.5 or 2.0. I don't think the 1.5 side has been discussed much on this list except by me, and Stephan and David. I'm typically concerned about majority rules system where it's the vocal majority that rules the day and not the silent majority. I don't want to go the route of marking things experimental which David's pro-1.5 vote seemed to advocate. From what I gathered, Pauli, David, and I were 1.5 with various degrees of opinion and Charles, and Robert are 2.0.Others that I know about: Stephan is 1.5, Jarrod is 2.0, Matthew and Darren seem to be for 2.0. Pauli, David, and Stephan, how opposed are you to numbering the next release as NumPy 2.0 with no experimental tag or the like. If you three could also agree. I could see my way through to supporting a NumPy 2.0 release.I would ask for the following: 1) I would like the release to come out in about 3-4 weeks 2) I would like the release to contain all the ABI changes we think we will need until NumPy 3.0 when something like David's ideas are implemented which would need to be no sooner than 1 year from now. 3) The following changes to the ABI (no promise that I might not ask for more before the release date): * change the ABI indicator * put the DATETIME dtypes back in their original place in the list * move the *cast functions to the end of the ArrFuncs structure * place 2-3 place-holders in that ArrFuncs structure * fix the hasobject data-type Any other simple ABI changes that should be made? Thanks, -Travis ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com wrote: I don't want to go the route of marking things experimental which David's pro-1.5 vote seemed to advocate. In that case, I prefer the new release to be marked as 2.0. There will then be no new numpy 1.4.x, and scipy will be built against Numpy 2.0 (to avoid having multiple scipy binaries hanging around for different versions of NumPy). 1) I would like the release to come out in about 3-4 weeks 2) I would like the release to contain all the ABI changes we think we will need until NumPy 3.0 when something like David's ideas are implemented which would need to be no sooner than 1 year from now. 3) The following changes to the ABI (no promise that I might not ask for more before the release date): I don't think changing the ABI before a release causes any issue, so you can put whatever change you want to put there. cheers, David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za On 11 February 2010 15:38, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za: On 11 February 2010 09:52, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0. I'm going with the element of least surprise: no one will be surprised when 1.5 is released with ABI changes I'll buy you a doughnut if that turns out to be correct. Now I wish I said few people instead :) As I read the discussion, I realised that not many people (including developers) were aware of the versioning policy. Since we did not follow the policy in the past, there is no precedent (hence, little surprise). How do precedents get established? If we make enough noise (release notes, notification on sourceforge, post on list, message in installer, etc.) upon releasing 1.5, that should be ample warning, and it may also be a good trial run for numpy 2.0. The major version number is unrelated to features, it is an ABI marker, not a feature marker. If one so much as breathes on the ABI, the major version number needs to change. Actually, it is. The whole issue is caused by willing to change ABI without changing major feature, which is seldom done. ABI is generally only changed because you have no choice, not because it is more convenient. cheers, David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Feb 11, 2010, at 5:57 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za On 11 February 2010 15:38, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za: On 11 February 2010 09:52, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0. I'm going with the element of least surprise: no one will be surprised when 1.5 is released with ABI changes I'll buy you a doughnut if that turns out to be correct. Now I wish I said few people instead :) As I read the discussion, I realised that not many people (including developers) were aware of the versioning policy. Since we did not follow the policy in the past, there is no precedent (hence, little surprise). How do precedents get established? If we make enough noise (release notes, notification on sourceforge, post on list, message in installer, etc.) upon releasing 1.5, that should be ample warning, and it may also be a good trial run for numpy 2.0. The major version number is unrelated to features, it is an ABI marker, not a feature marker. If one so much as breathes on the ABI, the major version number needs to change. Actually, it is. The whole issue is caused by willing to change ABI without changing major feature, which is seldom done. ABI is generally only changed because you have no choice, not because it is more convenient. Jus to make sure I understand: * 2.0 will be w/ datetime support and corresponds to the current trunk * 1.5 will be w/o datetime support ? A few weeks back, I committed some changes to the trunk (some numpy.ma stuffs) that I haven't backported to what was 1.4. What should I do with them ? ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Hi, I don't want to go the route of marking things experimental which David's pro-1.5 vote seemed to advocate. From what I gathered, Pauli, David, and I were 1.5 with various degrees of opinion and Charles, and Robert are 2.0. Others that I know about: Stephan is 1.5, Jarrod is 2.0, Matthew and Darren seem to be for 2.0. Yes - I'm still rather strongly for 2.0, on the basis that the downside (not as many new features as people might expect, a feeling that we might support a 1.x series) are considerably less damaging than unexpected ABI breakage. I could see my way through to supporting a NumPy 2.0 release. I would ask for the following: 1) I would like the release to come out in about 3-4 weeks 2) I would like the release to contain all the ABI changes we think we will need until NumPy 3.0 when something like David's ideas are implemented which would need to be no sooner than 1 year from now. 3) The following changes to the ABI (no promise that I might not ask for more before the release date): * change the ABI indicator * put the DATETIME dtypes back in their original place in the list * move the *cast functions to the end of the ArrFuncs structure * place 2-3 place-holders in that ArrFuncs structure * fix the hasobject data-type Any other simple ABI changes that should be made? That all seems good to me. See you, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
to, 2010-02-11 kello 16:38 -0600, Travis Oliphant kirjoitti: [clip] Pauli, David, and Stephan, how opposed are you to numbering the next release as NumPy 2.0 with no experimental tag or the like. If you three could also agree. I could see my way through to supporting a NumPy 2.0 release.I would ask for the following: Not very opposed -- if 2.0 seems better, then let's just pick it. It's a nice color, too ;) 1) I would like the release to come out in about 3-4 weeks 2) I would like the release to contain all the ABI changes we think we will need until NumPy 3.0 when something like David's ideas are implemented which would need to be no sooner than 1 year from now. 3) The following changes to the ABI (no promise that I might not ask for more before the release date): * change the ABI indicator * put the DATETIME dtypes back in their original place in the list * move the *cast functions to the end of the ArrFuncs structure * place 2-3 place-holders in that ArrFuncs structure * fix the hasobject data-type Sounds like a good plan. Any other simple ABI changes that should be made? None that I can think of. I'll pull out soon the extra fields added to the end of descr/ndarray structs for PEP 3118 currently in SVN, since they are actually not really needed for the implementation. Best, Pauli ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com wrote: Jus to make sure I understand: * 2.0 will be w/ datetime support and corresponds to the current trunk * 1.5 will be w/o datetime support ? I may have misunderstood, but my understanding is that there will be no 1.5 release under the current proposal. The next release will be 2.0 and will come out in 3-4 weeks time. 2.0 will basically be 1.4.0 with at least the ABI changes Travis outlined. If 2.0 is coming out in 3-4 weeks time we will need to be careful about how aggressive we are in terms of doing any more than 1.4 + ABI changes. Once the general plan is agreed upon, which seems to be the direction that things are headed, then we will need to decide whether we should just work on the trunk or use the 1.4 branch with possibly a few things backported from the branch. I am happy to simply back whatever strategy David Cournapeau thinks is best. Personally, I would love to see Pauli's work toward supporting Py3k make it in to the NumPy 2.0 release and I believe that Pauli thinks that is reasonable to do in a 3-4 week timeframe. I don't think we should even try to provide binaries for Py3k during this release, though. I would also like to mark the numarray and numeric support as deprecated and planned for removal in NumPy 3.0. Just marking it deprecated shouldn't cause any problems and should give anyone left using the old interfaces plenty of time to migrate prior to a future 3.0 release. -- Jarrod Millman Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute 10 Giannini Hall, UC Berkeley http://cirl.berkeley.edu/ ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Jarrod Millman mill...@berkeley.eduwrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com wrote: Jus to make sure I understand: * 2.0 will be w/ datetime support and corresponds to the current trunk * 1.5 will be w/o datetime support ? I may have misunderstood, but my understanding is that there will be no 1.5 release under the current proposal. The next release will be 2.0 and will come out in 3-4 weeks time. 2.0 will basically be 1.4.0 with at least the ABI changes Travis outlined. If 2.0 is coming out in 3-4 weeks time we will need to be careful about how aggressive we are in terms of doing any more than 1.4 + ABI changes. Once the general plan is agreed upon, which seems to be the direction that things are headed, then we will need to decide whether we should just work on the trunk or use the 1.4 branch with possibly a few things backported from the branch. I am happy to simply back whatever strategy David Cournapeau thinks is best. I do think a 1.4.1 should be released without the datetime changes just so there would be an updated version out there for slow adopters. We wouldn't maintain it, though, it would be the end of the 1.x line. Personally, I would love to see Pauli's work toward supporting Py3k make it in to the NumPy 2.0 release and I believe that Pauli thinks that is reasonable to do in a 3-4 week timeframe. I don't think we should even try to provide binaries for Py3k during this release, though. I would also like to mark the numarray and numeric support as deprecated and planned for removal in NumPy 3.0. Just marking it deprecated shouldn't cause any problems and should give anyone left using the old interfaces plenty of time to migrate prior to a future 3.0 release. What about python version? Do we want to bump that up from 2.4? Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 18:23, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: What about python version? Do we want to bump that up from 2.4? Only if it were *really* necessary for the Python 3 port. Otherwise, I would resist the urge. -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Feb 11, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Robert Kern wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 18:23, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: What about python version? Do we want to bump that up from 2.4? Only if it were *really* necessary for the Python 3 port. Otherwise, I would resist the urge. My understanding is NumPy 2.0 is on the trunk. If a 1.4.1 is released without the date-time changes, I will not argue or complain. On the trunk, I'm about to commit a change that updates the version number to 2.0 and changes the dtype pickle code so that it only updates the version number and enlarges the state tuple if there is actually metadata that needs to be included in the pickle. This will allow most pickles to be loaded on old NumPy releases. -Travis ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
One question: Does anyone think it's a good idea to provide any support for numpy version selection, similar to wxPython's wxversion? What it does is allow an installation to have default version that gets imported with import wx. Optionally, other versions can be installed, and selected by calling: import wxversion wxversion.select(version_number) before the first import wx. This was added to wxPython when there was a lot of API breakage going on (I think during the 2.4 - 2.6 transition). It's nice, because you can have a set of installed utilities that rely on a given version, and then develop your new stuff with a newer version without breaking anything. In numpy's case, it might be messier, as there are a lot more packages that depend on numpy, but it could still be helpful, and in fact, maybe more necessary. Older versions of the MPL wx back-end were compiled against specific versions of wx, and wxversion was helpful for that. Anyway, it seems the big isuue is when an ABI-incompatible version of numpy gets released, you can't even install it until you re-compile all the packages you may have that are built against numpy. With version selection, you could install and mess with it without breaking any running code. It may be that virtualenv (and friends) is the right way to handle this now, however -- it wasn't around when wxversion was developed, and it may be a better way to keep a whole stack of packages compatible. Any point in thinking more about this? -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/ORR(206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception chris.bar...@noaa.gov ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Robert Kern wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 18:23, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: What about python version? Do we want to bump that up from 2.4? Only if it were *really* necessary for the Python 3 port. Otherwise, I would resist the urge. Me too, on the basis that 2.4 is the default version supported by enterprise-grade linux distributions (RHEL, CENTOS, etc...). cheers, David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 18:46, Christopher Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote: One question: Does anyone think it's a good idea to provide any support for numpy version selection, similar to wxPython's wxversion? -1. It complicates packaging and distribution substantially. -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Charles R Harris wrote: I do think a 1.4.1 should be released without the datetime changes just so there would be an updated version out there for slow adopters. We wouldn't maintain it, though, it would be the end of the 1.x line. We could make a source release - we could do it from the current 1.4.x branch as it is, as the datetime has already been removed. As I want to get a binary installer ready for scipy as soon as 2.0 get released, I don't think it makes sense to waste time on getting a scipy binary built against 1.4.x now. cheers, David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Feb 11, 2010, at 7:03 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: Charles R Harris wrote: I do think a 1.4.1 should be released without the datetime changes just so there would be an updated version out there for slow adopters. We wouldn't maintain it, though, it would be the end of the 1.x line. We could make a source release - we could do it from the current 1.4.x branch as it is, as the datetime has already been removed. As I want to get a binary installer ready for scipy as soon as 2.0 get released, I don't think it makes sense to waste time on getting a scipy binary built against 1.4.x now. This is true, but you could make a NumPy 1.4.x binary and the old SciPy binary would still presumably work. -Travis -- Travis Oliphant Enthought Inc. 1-512-536-1057 http://www.enthought.com oliph...@enthought.com ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 6:03 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jpwrote: Charles R Harris wrote: I do think a 1.4.1 should be released without the datetime changes just so there would be an updated version out there for slow adopters. We wouldn't maintain it, though, it would be the end of the 1.x line. We could make a source release - we could do it from the current 1.4.x branch as it is, as the datetime has already been removed. As I want to get a binary installer ready for scipy as soon as 2.0 get released, I don't think it makes sense to waste time on getting a scipy binary built against 1.4.x now. I think a 1.4.x release without a corresponding scipy release would be fine. Folks who want to upgrade scipy could then compile it themselves but they wouldn't have to recompile all the other binaries that depended on numpy. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:23 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: Travis Oliphant wrote: This is true, but you could make a NumPy 1.4.x binary and the old SciPy binary would still presumably work. There is still the cython issue, although it concerns only some packages (stats and spatial IIRC), and there is an error message at least. I regenerated the cython files in the 0.7.x branch, so people could at least prepare compatible binaries themselves (and as in numpy, releasing a purely source tarball for scipy is much less of an issue - I can do it right now since almost nothing went in the 0.7.x branch since the 0.7.1 release). So 1.4.1 wouldn't resolve the cython issue, packages that use cython still would need to be refreshed and recompiled, but non-cython packages should run without recompiling? Josef cheers, David ___ 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
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: So 1.4.1 wouldn't resolve the cython issue, packages that use cython still would need to be refreshed and recompiled, but non-cython packages should run without recompiling? It is impossible to solve the cython issue in numpy. The only solution is to regenerate the cython files with Cython 0.12.1 (which is what I have done in scipy 0.7.x branch). Hopefully, the issue will never happen again in scipy, as long as we are careful to use always Cython 0.12.1 or above, cheers, David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:36 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: So 1.4.1 wouldn't resolve the cython issue, packages that use cython still would need to be refreshed and recompiled, but non-cython packages should run without recompiling? It is impossible to solve the cython issue in numpy. The only solution is to regenerate the cython files with Cython 0.12.1 (which is what I have done in scipy 0.7.x branch). Hopefully, the issue will never happen again in scipy, as long as we are careful to use always Cython 0.12.1 or above, scipy is relatively easy to compile, I was thinking also of h5py, pytables and pymc (b/c of pytables), none of them are importing with numpy 1.4.0 because of the cython issue. Thanks, Josef cheers, David ___ 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
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: scipy is relatively easy to compile, I was thinking also of h5py, pytables and pymc (b/c of pytables), none of them are importing with numpy 1.4.0 because of the cython issue. As I said, all of them will have to be regenerated with cython 0.12.1. There is no other solution, cheers, David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jpwrote: josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: scipy is relatively easy to compile, I was thinking also of h5py, pytables and pymc (b/c of pytables), none of them are importing with numpy 1.4.0 because of the cython issue. As I said, all of them will have to be regenerated with cython 0.12.1. There is no other solution, Wait, won't the structures be the same size? If they are then the cython check won't fail. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Charles R Harris wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: scipy is relatively easy to compile, I was thinking also of h5py, pytables and pymc (b/c of pytables), none of them are importing with numpy 1.4.0 because of the cython issue. As I said, all of them will have to be regenerated with cython 0.12.1. There is no other solution, Wait, won't the structures be the same size? If they are then the cython check won't fail. Yes, but the structures are bigger (even after removing the datetime stuff, I had the cython warning when I did some tests). cheers, David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:12 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jpwrote: Charles R Harris wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: scipy is relatively easy to compile, I was thinking also of h5py, pytables and pymc (b/c of pytables), none of them are importing with numpy 1.4.0 because of the cython issue. As I said, all of them will have to be regenerated with cython 0.12.1. There is no other solution, Wait, won't the structures be the same size? If they are then the cython check won't fail. Yes, but the structures are bigger (even after removing the datetime stuff, I had the cython warning when I did some tests). That's curious. It sounds like it isn't ABI compatible yet. Any idea of what was added? It would be helpful if the cython message gave a bit more information... Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:12 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: Charles R Harris wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: scipy is relatively easy to compile, I was thinking also of h5py, pytables and pymc (b/c of pytables), none of them are importing with numpy 1.4.0 because of the cython issue. As I said, all of them will have to be regenerated with cython 0.12.1. There is no other solution, Wait, won't the structures be the same size? If they are then the cython check won't fail. Yes, but the structures are bigger (even after removing the datetime stuff, I had the cython warning when I did some tests). That's curious. It sounds like it isn't ABI compatible yet. Any idea of what was added? It would be helpful if the cython message gave a bit more information... Could it be related to __array_prepare__? ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Is it just the metadata element in the dtype structure or were other objects affected. -- (mobile phone of) Travis Oliphant Enthought, Inc. 1-512-536-1057 http://www.enthought.com On Feb 11, 2010, at 9:12 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: Charles R Harris wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: scipy is relatively easy to compile, I was thinking also of h5py, pytables and pymc (b/c of pytables), none of them are importing with numpy 1.4.0 because of the cython issue. As I said, all of them will have to be regenerated with cython 0.12.1. There is no other solution, Wait, won't the structures be the same size? If they are then the cython check won't fail. Yes, but the structures are bigger (even after removing the datetime stuff, I had the cython warning when I did some tests). cheers, David ___ 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
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:12 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: Charles R Harris wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: scipy is relatively easy to compile, I was thinking also of h5py, pytables and pymc (b/c of pytables), none of them are importing with numpy 1.4.0 because of the cython issue. As I said, all of them will have to be regenerated with cython 0.12.1. There is no other solution, Wait, won't the structures be the same size? If they are then the cython check won't fail. Yes, but the structures are bigger (even after removing the datetime stuff, I had the cython warning when I did some tests). That's curious. It sounds like it isn't ABI compatible yet. Any idea of what was added? It would be helpful if the cython message gave a bit more information... Could it be related to __array_prepare__? Didn't __array_prepare__ go into 1.3? Did you add anything to a structure? Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Charles R Harris wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:12 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: Charles R Harris wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: scipy is relatively easy to compile, I was thinking also of h5py, pytables and pymc (b/c of pytables), none of them are importing with numpy 1.4.0 because of the cython issue. As I said, all of them will have to be regenerated with cython 0.12.1. There is no other solution, Wait, won't the structures be the same size? If they are then the cython check won't fail. Yes, but the structures are bigger (even after removing the datetime stuff, I had the cython warning when I did some tests). That's curious. It sounds like it isn't ABI compatible yet. The Cython problem was that before 0.12.1, it failed importing whenever the struct size changed. You can change struct size and keep ABI compatibility (as long as nobody includes the struct in their own code), cheers, David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:12 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: Charles R Harris wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: scipy is relatively easy to compile, I was thinking also of h5py, pytables and pymc (b/c of pytables), none of them are importing with numpy 1.4.0 because of the cython issue. As I said, all of them will have to be regenerated with cython 0.12.1. There is no other solution, Wait, won't the structures be the same size? If they are then the cython check won't fail. Yes, but the structures are bigger (even after removing the datetime stuff, I had the cython warning when I did some tests). That's curious. It sounds like it isn't ABI compatible yet. Any idea of what was added? It would be helpful if the cython message gave a bit more information... Could it be related to __array_prepare__? Didn't __array_prepare__ go into 1.3? Did you add anything to a structure? No, it was included in 1.4: http://svn.scipy.org/svn/numpy/trunk/doc/release/1.4.0-notes.rst No, I don't think so. I added __array_prepare__ to array_methods[] in this file: http://svn.scipy.org/svn/numpy/trunk/numpy/core/src/multiarray/methods.c Darren ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Charles R Harris wrote: I don't see any struct definitions there, it looks clean. Any struct defined outside numpy/core/include is fine to change at will as far as ABI is concerned anyway, so no need to check anything :) David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:03 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jpwrote: Charles R Harris wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:12 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: Charles R Harris wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: scipy is relatively easy to compile, I was thinking also of h5py, pytables and pymc (b/c of pytables), none of them are importing with numpy 1.4.0 because of the cython issue. As I said, all of them will have to be regenerated with cython 0.12.1. There is no other solution, Wait, won't the structures be the same size? If they are then the cython check won't fail. Yes, but the structures are bigger (even after removing the datetime stuff, I had the cython warning when I did some tests). That's curious. It sounds like it isn't ABI compatible yet. The Cython problem was that before 0.12.1, it failed importing whenever the struct size changed. You can change struct size and keep ABI compatibility (as long as nobody includes the struct in their own code), Sure, but I don't recall any additions to structures apart from the datetime stuff and the metadata element. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:16 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jpwrote: Charles R Harris wrote: I don't see any struct definitions there, it looks clean. Any struct defined outside numpy/core/include is fine to change at will as far as ABI is concerned anyway, so no need to check anything :) :o Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Charles R Harris wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:03 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: Charles R Harris wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:12 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: Charles R Harris wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: scipy is relatively easy to compile, I was thinking also of h5py, pytables and pymc (b/c of pytables), none of them are importing with numpy 1.4.0 because of the cython issue. As I said, all of them will have to be regenerated with cython 0.12.1. There is no other solution, Wait, won't the structures be the same size? If they are then the cython check won't fail. Yes, but the structures are bigger (even after removing the datetime stuff, I had the cython warning when I did some tests). That's curious. It sounds like it isn't ABI compatible yet. The Cython problem was that before 0.12.1, it failed importing whenever the struct size changed. You can change struct size and keep ABI compatibility (as long as nobody includes the struct in their own code), Sure, but I don't recall any additions to structures apart from the datetime stuff and the metadata element. At least iterator (I needed to add some members to support the neighborhood iterator). There may be more changes I am not aware of, but a quick look at git di svn/tags/1.3.0..svn/1.4.x numpy/core/include suggests no other big changes, David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:28 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jpwrote: Charles R Harris wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:03 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: Charles R Harris wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:12 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: Charles R Harris wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: scipy is relatively easy to compile, I was thinking also of h5py, pytables and pymc (b/c of pytables), none of them are importing with numpy 1.4.0 because of the cython issue. As I said, all of them will have to be regenerated with cython 0.12.1. There is no other solution, Wait, won't the structures be the same size? If they are then the cython check won't fail. Yes, but the structures are bigger (even after removing the datetime stuff, I had the cython warning when I did some tests). That's curious. It sounds like it isn't ABI compatible yet. The Cython problem was that before 0.12.1, it failed importing whenever the struct size changed. You can change struct size and keep ABI compatibility (as long as nobody includes the struct in their own code), Sure, but I don't recall any additions to structures apart from the datetime stuff and the metadata element. At least iterator (I needed to add some members to support the neighborhood iterator). There may be more changes I am not aware of, but a quick look at git di svn/tags/1.3.0..svn/1.4.x numpy/core/include suggests no other big changes, Well, so it goes. I don't see any reasonable way to fix that. I wonder how recent the cython size check is? Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Charles R Harris wrote: Well, so it goes. I don't see any reasonable way to fix that. I wonder how recent the cython size check is? See related discussion on Cython ML - the problem is known for some time. That's when cython fixed the error into a warning that I started looking into the ABI issue which started the whole drama :) David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Feb 8, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jarrod Millman
mill...@berkeley.edu wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be
called
a) 1.5.0
b) 2.0.0
My vote goes to b.
You don't matter. Nor do I.
I definitely should have counted to 100 before sending that. It wasn't
helpful and I apologize.
I actually found this quite funny.I need to apologize if my
previous email sounded like I was trying to silence other opinions,
somehow. As Robert alluded to in a rather well-written email that
touched on resolving disagreements, it can be hard to communicate that
you are listening to opposing views despite the fact that your opinion
has not changed.
We have a SciPy steering committee that should be reviewed again this
year at the SciPy conference. As Robert said, we prefer not to have
to use it to decide questions. I think it has been trotted out as a
place holder for a NumPy steering committee which has never really
existed as far as I know. NumPy decisions in the past have been made
by me and other people who are writing the code. I think we have
tried pretty hard to listen to all points of view before doing
anything.I think there are many examples of this. I hope this
previous history alleviates some concern that something else is going
to be done here.Exhibit A is again my comment that we should
change one of the members of an internal data structure ('hasobject')
which I thought we would change at 1.1, but the demand for ABI
stability has left it unchanged to this day.
The list I proposed for deciding the issue was the group I am aware of
having written significant code for NumPy.I suppose I un-
intentionally left off Pierre GM who contributed masked array
support. We need some way of making a decision, and actually
painting this bike shed.
Christopher's argument that having a NumPy 2.0 sets expectations for
keeping 1.4 and 2.0 is a strong one in my mind. The policy of
coupling ABI and version numbers makes less and less sense to me as I
hear the concerns of keeping the ABI consistent.We should be free
to change the version numbers without implying an ABI break. I can
only envision right now perhaps one more ABI break (the one David has
talked about to make pimpl interfaces).
If anyone else feels like their point of view has not been expressed,
then please speak up now.
Best regards,
-Travis
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Feb 10, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: The list I proposed for deciding the issue was the group I am aware of having written significant code for NumPy.I suppose I un-intentionally left off Pierre GM who contributed masked array support. We need some way of making a decision, and actually painting this bike shed. Oh, don't mind me. As I only contribute on the Python side, I don't feel qualify to voice any opinion about APIs/ABIs. If hard-pressed, I would have leaned on Travis's side. Anyway, you would have heard me if I needed to. Just let me know what I need to backport for which version, I'll bring my brushes. ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com wrote: On Feb 8, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Darren Dale wrote: I definitely should have counted to 100 before sending that. It wasn't helpful and I apologize. I actually found this quite funny. I need to apologize if my previous email sounded like I was trying to silence other opinions, somehow. As Robert alluded to in a rather well-written email that touched on resolving disagreements, it can be hard to communicate that you are listening to opposing views despite the fact that your opinion has not changed. For what its worth, I feel I have had ample opportunity to make my concerns known, and at this point will leave it to others to do right by the numpy user community. We have a SciPy steering committee that should be reviewed again this year at the SciPy conference. As Robert said, we prefer not to have to use it to decide questions. I think it has been trotted out as a place holder for a NumPy steering committee which has never really existed as far as I know. NumPy decisions in the past have been made by me and other people who are writing the code. I think we have tried pretty hard to listen to all points of view before doing anything. Just a comment: I would like to point out that there is (necessarily) some arbitrary threshold to who is being recognized as people who are actively writing the code. Over the last year, I have posted fixes for multiple bugs and extended the ufunc wrapping mechanisms (__array_prepare__) which were included in numpy-1.4.0, and have also been developing the quantities package, which is intimately tied up with numpy's development. I don't think that makes me a major contributor like you or Chuck etc., but I am heavily invested in numpy's development and an active contributor. Maybe it would be worth considering an approach where the numpy user community occasionally nominates a few people to serve on some kind of steering committee along with the developers. Although if there is interest in or criticism of this idea, I don't think this is the right thread to discuss it. Darren ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Hi, NumPy decisions in the past have been made by me and other people who are writing the code. I think we have tried pretty hard to listen to all points of view before doing anything. I think there are many examples of this. I hope this previous history alleviates some concern that something else is going to be done here. I think it's notable in general how collegial numpy discussions have been, and for that, thank you to you in particular. I was going to say earlier, but didn't, that your list of steerers seemed very sensible. Only a small point, but, while I completely agree that the version number is a bike-shed, I don't think that's true of the ABI breakage, but I'm sure that's not what you meant. See you, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Matthew Brett wrote: Only a small point, but, while I completely agree that the version number is a bike-shed, that's what I meant when I said it... I don't think that's true of the ABI breakage, well, yes and no. On the one hand, it's very big deal -- not the color of the shed. On the other hand, it's a simple enough concept that almost anyone can have an opinion on it (even me). But getting those opinions out there is important, and that was done. -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/ORR(206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception chris.bar...@noaa.gov ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com wrote: Christopher's argument that having a NumPy 2.0 sets expectations for keeping 1.4 and 2.0 is a strong one in my mind. The policy of coupling ABI and version numbers makes less and less sense to me as I hear the concerns of keeping the ABI consistent. We should be free to change the version numbers without implying an ABI break. I can only envision right now perhaps one more ABI break (the one David has talked about to make pimpl interfaces). I think one issue with versions is that they convey multiple things at the same time. The number itself conveys an idea of progress and features - the bigger the change in the number, the bigger changes are expected by users. This is the part where everyone has an opinion. Then, there is also the idea that for a library, versions conveys ABI and API compatibility, and this should be purely technical IMO. There are well established rules here: http://www.linuxshowcase.org/2000/2000papers/papers/browndavid/browndavid_html/ A major release is an incompatible change to the system software, and implies that [some] applications dependent on the earlier major release (specifically those that relied upon the specific features that have changed incompatibly) will need to be changed in order to work on the new major release. A minor release of the system software is an upward-compatible change--one which adds some new interfaces, but maintains compatibility for all existing interfaces. Applications (or other software products) dependent on an earlier minor release will not need to be changed in order to work on the new minor release: Since the later release contains all the earlier interfaces, the change(s) imparted to the system does not affect those applications. A micro release is a compatible change which does not add any new interfaces: A change is made to the implementation (such as to improve performance, scalability or some other qualitative property) but provides an interface equivalent to all other micro revisions at the same minor level. Again, dependent applications (or other software products) will not need to be changed in order to work on that release as the change imparted to the system (or library) does not undermine their dependencies. This idea is ingrained in the tool (the loader use those rules to decide which shared library to load for a given binary with its libraries dependencies). Now, python itself does not follow this rule: ABI and API breaks arrive together (every minor release), but it is my impression that they intend to be stricter for the 3.x series. I have dived into gtk development quite a bit to look at existing processes: Gtk has a good history in that aspect, and is used by a lot of ISV outside open source (vmware, adobe, etc...). They have an experience we don't have. Coincidentally, they are discussing for gtk 3.0 about the best way to go forward, and they have the exact same issue about lack of implementation hiding for structures. For example in there: http://micke.hallendal.net/blog/gtk-30-enabling-incrementalism/, Havoc Pennington (one of the main gtk developer) makes the argument about 3.0 breaking ABI only without any new feature, serving as a basis for new features afterwise, to avoid having a version in preparation taking too long. Maybe that's an idea to follow. Concerning the fear raised by Pauli and others about the massive breakage, I am also looking at existing refactoring tools in C to make this almost automatic (mozilla has developed an impressive set of tools in that area, for example pork: https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Pork_Tools). cheers, David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On 11 February 2010 03:22, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote: I think one issue with versions is that they convey multiple things at the same time. The number itself conveys an idea of progress and features - the bigger the change in the number, the bigger changes are expected by users. This is the part where everyone has an opinion. Then, there is also the idea that for a library, versions conveys ABI and API compatibility, and this should be purely technical IMO. There are well established rules here: You hit the nail on the head; this conflict arose because we did not have a version policy in place earlier. An expectation was generated that NumPy 2.0 would co-incide with a thorough review of the API (an exercise I hope we complete in the next year or two). We have a simple decision to make: do we renege on the promise of an API review for 2.0, or do we neglect the new versioning system? Since the new versioning system has not been in use all that long (the reason for this minor upset), we don't stand much to lose by naming this next ABI-breaking release 1.5. Regards Stéfan ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za On 11 February 2010 03:22, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote: I think one issue with versions is that they convey multiple things at the same time. The number itself conveys an idea of progress and features - the bigger the change in the number, the bigger changes are expected by users. This is the part where everyone has an opinion. Then, there is also the idea that for a library, versions conveys ABI and API compatibility, and this should be purely technical IMO. There are well established rules here: You hit the nail on the head; this conflict arose because we did not have a version policy in place earlier. An expectation was generated that NumPy 2.0 would co-incide with a thorough review of the API (an exercise I hope we complete in the next year or two). We have a simple decision to make: do we renege on the promise of an API review for 2.0, or do we neglect the new versioning system? Since the new versioning system has not been in use all that long (the reason for this minor upset), A policy has effect from the time of promulgation. It's not like you have to wait a couple of years while it seasons. we don't stand much to lose by naming this next ABI-breaking release 1.5. Except the accepted policy will be discarded and we will have to start all over again. We can't change policy on a whim and still maintain that we *have* a policy. We won't have one. But we can have long discussions... ...this should be purely technical IMO. There are well established rules here: Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:23 AM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: Jarrod Millman wrote: Just to be clear, I would prefer to see the ABI-breaking release be called 2.0. I don't see why we have to get the release out in three weeks, though. I think it would be better to use this opportunity to take some time to make sure we get it right. As a compromise, what about the following: - remove ABI-incompatible changes for 1.4.x This is done: http://github.com/cournape/numpy/tree/abi_fix This can be committed to svn in whatever branch we decide to put this in. I have also committed changes into scipy 0.7.x, so that if building scipy against numpy 1.3.0, and updating numpy from the above branch still gives a working scipy (modulo one test which fails when run against abi_fix numpy, but unlikely to be to ABI issues). cheers, David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
I went ahead and set the default download for NumPy back to the 1.3.0 release on sourceforge. I also added a news item stating that 1.4.0 has temporarily been pulled due to the unintended ABI break pending a decision by the developers. Currently, the 1.4.0 release can still be accessed if you go to the download manager for sourceforge. Jarrod ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Jarrod Millman mill...@berkeley.eduwrote: I went ahead and set the default download for NumPy back to the 1.3.0 release on sourceforge. I also added a news item stating that 1.4.0 has temporarily been pulled due to the unintended ABI break pending a decision by the developers. Currently, the 1.4.0 release can still be accessed if you go to the download manager for sourceforge. I think we need to make that decision now. It seems to have gotten hung up in conflicts that need to be resolved. How should we go about it? Does the numpy steering council (name?) have a role here. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Feb 8, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Jarrod Millman mill...@berkeley.edu wrote: I went ahead and set the default download for NumPy back to the 1.3.0 release on sourceforge. I also added a news item stating that 1.4.0 has temporarily been pulled due to the unintended ABI break pending a decision by the developers. Currently, the 1.4.0 release can still be accessed if you go to the download manager for sourceforge. I think we need to make that decision now. It seems to have gotten hung up in conflicts that need to be resolved. How should we go about it? Does the numpy steering council (name?) have a role here. It seems like consensus has been reached on making 1.4.1 an ABI compatible release. The remaining question is what to call the next release of NumPy 1.5 or 2.0. I would prefer to call it 1.5 because 2.0 sounds like it's significantly different from a use-level than 1.4, but it won't be. While it is a pain to update all your packages, we just make clear that with NumPy 1.5 you have to re-compile extensions built with it. Yes, that is a break with what we thought would be the pattern used at SciPy 2008, but it has been many years since an ABI break has occurred, and I wouldn't mind updating the pattern. I don't really like the idea of tying the version number to the ABI number anyway.This was one reason to put an actual ABI number in the source code to begin with (so that it could be queried independently of the version number). I do agree that the ABI should not change much. But, sometimes it is unavoidable.This rare occurrence should really be independent of the version number system which should be allowed to change independently based on the API alterations. I'm not really much in to majority-wins kinds of approaches (I much prefer consensus when it can be reached). But, in this case I think the majority of David, Pauli, Chuck, Robert, and I should decide the issue. -Travis ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.comwrote: On Feb 8, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Jarrod Millman mill...@berkeley.eduwrote: I went ahead and set the default download for NumPy back to the 1.3.0 release on sourceforge. I also added a news item stating that 1.4.0 has temporarily been pulled due to the unintended ABI break pending a decision by the developers. Currently, the 1.4.0 release can still be accessed if you go to the download manager for sourceforge. I think we need to make that decision now. It seems to have gotten hung up in conflicts that need to be resolved. How should we go about it? Does the numpy steering council (name?) have a role here. It seems like consensus has been reached on making 1.4.1 an ABI compatible release. The remaining question is what to call the next release of NumPy 1.5 or 2.0. I would prefer to call it 1.5 because 2.0 sounds like it's significantly different from a use-level than 1.4, but it won't be.While it is a pain to update all your packages, we just make clear that with NumPy 1.5 you have to re-compile extensions built with it. Yes, that is a break with what we thought would be the pattern used at SciPy 2008, but it has been many years since an ABI break has occurred, and I wouldn't mind updating the pattern. I don't really like the idea of tying the version number to the ABI number anyway.This was one reason to put an actual ABI number in the source code to begin with (so that it could be queried independently of the version number). I do agree that the ABI should not change much. But, sometimes it is unavoidable.This rare occurrence should really be independent of the version number system which should be allowed to change independently based on the API alterations. I'm not really much in to majority-wins kinds of approaches (I much prefer consensus when it can be reached). But, in this case I think the majority of David, Pauli, Chuck, Robert, and I should decide the issue. It sounds like the remaining issue is the number to give to the ABI breaking release. All releases should naturally be made as expeditiously as possible. So, here is the question before the house: Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called a) 1.5.0 b) 2.0.0 My vote goes to a). Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.comwrote: On Feb 8, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Jarrod Millman mill...@berkeley.eduwrote: I went ahead and set the default download for NumPy back to the 1.3.0 release on sourceforge. I also added a news item stating that 1.4.0 has temporarily been pulled due to the unintended ABI break pending a decision by the developers. Currently, the 1.4.0 release can still be accessed if you go to the download manager for sourceforge. I think we need to make that decision now. It seems to have gotten hung up in conflicts that need to be resolved. How should we go about it? Does the numpy steering council (name?) have a role here. It seems like consensus has been reached on making 1.4.1 an ABI compatible release. The remaining question is what to call the next release of NumPy 1.5 or 2.0. I would prefer to call it 1.5 because 2.0 sounds like it's significantly different from a use-level than 1.4, but it won't be.While it is a pain to update all your packages, we just make clear that with NumPy 1.5 you have to re-compile extensions built with it. Yes, that is a break with what we thought would be the pattern used at SciPy 2008, but it has been many years since an ABI break has occurred, and I wouldn't mind updating the pattern. I don't really like the idea of tying the version number to the ABI number anyway.This was one reason to put an actual ABI number in the source code to begin with (so that it could be queried independently of the version number). I do agree that the ABI should not change much. But, sometimes it is unavoidable.This rare occurrence should really be independent of the version number system which should be allowed to change independently based on the API alterations. I'm not really much in to majority-wins kinds of approaches (I much prefer consensus when it can be reached). But, in this case I think the majority of David, Pauli, Chuck, Robert, and I should decide the issue. It sounds like the remaining issue is the number to give to the ABI breaking release. All releases should naturally be made as expeditiously as possible. So, here is the question before the house: Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called a) 1.5.0 b) 2.0.0 My vote goes to a). Oops, make that b). I want it to be called 2.0.0 Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called a) 1.5.0 b) 2.0.0 My vote goes to b. Jarrod ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jarrod Millman mill...@berkeley.edu wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called a) 1.5.0 b) 2.0.0 My vote goes to b. You don't matter. Nor do I. ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 16:05, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jarrod Millman mill...@berkeley.edu wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called a) 1.5.0 b) 2.0.0 My vote goes to b. You don't matter. Nor do I. Jarrod is on the steering committee. -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jarrod Millman mill...@berkeley.edu wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called a) 1.5.0 b) 2.0.0 My vote goes to b. You don't matter. Nor do I. I definitely should have counted to 100 before sending that. It wasn't helpful and I apologize. Darren ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 05:08:17PM -0500, Darren Dale wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jarrod Millman mill...@berkeley.edu wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called a) 1.5.0 b) 2.0.0 My vote goes to b. You don't matter. Nor do I. I definitely should have counted to 100 before sending that. It wasn't helpful and I apologize. Actually, Darren, I found you fairly entertaining. ;) Gaël ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 16:05, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jarrod Millman mill...@berkeley.edu wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called a) 1.5.0 b) 2.0.0 My vote goes to b. You don't matter. Nor do I. Jarrod is on the steering committee. You seem to be pointing out that Darren's vote doesn't count but Jarrod's does. Really, that's a view of the steering committee idea that seems to me a bit miserable. Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Hi, On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Jarrod Millman mill...@berkeley.edu wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called a) 1.5.0 b) 2.0.0 My vote goes to b. I guess Travis' point is that 2.0 implies rather large feature difference from - say 1.0.0 - and this isn't the case.On the other hand, I don't see what substantial difference that makes in the long run - we can always go to 3.0 for a big rewrite and I don't think we'll use any users as a result. On the other hand we might lose users from an ABI change not easily predicted from the version numbering. I guess what I'm saying is we have lots of integers left, and they are cheap, and I'd also vote for using one up to get round this little hurdle. Best, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 16:10, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 16:05, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jarrod Millman mill...@berkeley.edu wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called a) 1.5.0 b) 2.0.0 My vote goes to b. You don't matter. Nor do I. Jarrod is on the steering committee. You seem to be pointing out that Darren's vote doesn't count but Jarrod's does. Really, that's a view of the steering committee idea that seems to me a bit miserable. It's just the way that voting works. Voting cannot work without clear membership rules. That's why we try to avoid voting as much as possible. That's why the discussion has gone on so long. We want to hear everyone's input (especially Darren's) and try to work towards a consensus solution that everyone can live with. When that fails, and there is significant dissent over the major solutions at the end of the discussion, then you fall back to the much inferior voting mechanism. Making technical decision by a vote is the worst possible outcome, but it's the last decision mechanism available short of a BDFL. Trust me, the steering committee would much prefer not to decide anything by any means. -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: You don't matter. Nor do I. I definitely should have counted to 100 before sending that. It wasn't helpful and I apologize. No worries, your first email brought a smile to my face. ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Trust me, the steering committee would much prefer not to decide anything by any means. I do trust you ;) Looking at the emails, it seems to me there's quite a strong consensus. You don't mean that the steering committee is needed when people on the steering committee don't agree with the consensus, I'm sure. See you, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 16:27, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote: Trust me, the steering committee would much prefer not to decide anything by any means. I do trust you ;) Looking at the emails, it seems to me there's quite a strong consensus. No, there isn't. Consensus means everyone, not just a strong majority. http://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
No, there isn't. Consensus means everyone, not just a strong majority. http://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html I stand corrected. I meant then, that there's a strong majority agreement on what to do. See you, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 16:32, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote: No, there isn't. Consensus means everyone, not just a strong majority. http://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html I stand corrected. I meant then, that there's a strong majority agreement on what to do. That is correct. And having failed to find a consensus solution and with several of the people doing the actual work disagreeing (which is neither you, nor I, nor Darren, nor most readers on this list who have weighed in on the discussion phase and may feel miffed about not getting a final vote), we move on to a vote from the steering committee to formalize that majority. -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Feb 8, 2010, at 5:38 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com wrote: I think we need to make that decision now. It seems to have gotten hung up in conflicts that need to be resolved. How should we go about it? Does the numpy steering council (name?) have a role here. It seems like consensus has been reached on making 1.4.1 an ABI compatible release. The remaining question is what to call the next release of NumPy 1.5 or 2.0. I am for 1.5 as well, as long as it is marked experimental (the installers name would have an experimental tag or something). Just wanted to chime in as a user of numpy that following the discussion that the care the developers are taking in deciding issues like this gives me strong confidence in the software written. All over many thanks to all that has made numpy such an enormously useful tool in my scientific career! Cheers Tommy Grav ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Hi, That is correct. And having failed to find a consensus solution and with several of the people doing the actual work disagreeing (which is neither you, nor I, nor Darren, nor most readers on this list who have weighed in on the discussion phase and may feel miffed about not getting a final vote), we move on to a vote from the steering committee to formalize that majority. I'm continuing only because, the discussion has generated some heat, and I think part of that heat comes from the perception that the excellent community spirit of the project is somewhat undermined by the feeling that reasonable arguments are not being fully heard. More generally I completely agree that the decisions have to be made by the people doing the work, and that I'm not one of them. But, the emphasis of the work on numpy has shifted from development to maintenance, and I'm still not sure that the discussion thus far has fully reflected that fact. I'm really not disagreeing with the decisions made (and if I did, you could rightly and politely ignore me), but I think the atmosphere of how the decisions are made is also important. See you, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 17:03, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, That is correct. And having failed to find a consensus solution and with several of the people doing the actual work disagreeing (which is neither you, nor I, nor Darren, nor most readers on this list who have weighed in on the discussion phase and may feel miffed about not getting a final vote), we move on to a vote from the steering committee to formalize that majority. I'm continuing only because, the discussion has generated some heat, and I think part of that heat comes from the perception that the excellent community spirit of the project is somewhat undermined by the feeling that reasonable arguments are not being fully heard. How does one get that feeling? More generally I completely agree that the decisions have to be made by the people doing the work, and that I'm not one of them. But, the emphasis of the work on numpy has shifted from development to maintenance, and I'm still not sure that the discussion thus far has fully reflected that fact. Unfortunately, it's getting too late to address deficiencies in the breadth and depth of the already-too-extensive discussion. You should have spoken up sooner. We need to make a decision now. -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Hi, I'm continuing only because, the discussion has generated some heat, and I think part of that heat comes from the perception that the excellent community spirit of the project is somewhat undermined by the feeling that reasonable arguments are not being fully heard. How does one get that feeling? Is that a real question? More generally I completely agree that the decisions have to be made by the people doing the work, and that I'm not one of them. But, the emphasis of the work on numpy has shifted from development to maintenance, and I'm still not sure that the discussion thus far has fully reflected that fact. Unfortunately, it's getting too late to address deficiencies in the breadth and depth of the already-too-extensive discussion. You should have spoken up sooner. We need to make a decision now. I'm not asking for influence in the decision, nor am I trying to delay the decision. See you, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Charles R Harris wrote: Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called a) 1.5.0 b) 2.0.0 Classic bicycle shed designing... but I like designing bicycle sheds, so I'll make this comment: 2.0 appears to the average user to be a big enough deal that they might expect that the 1.4 and 2.0 branches would both be maintained for a while. And maybe even expect that you could have both installed simultaneously. I don't think anyone is planning on supporting that, so I think 1.5 is better. Thanks to the folks doing the real work, here. -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/ORR(206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception chris.bar...@noaa.gov ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 17:43, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm continuing only because, the discussion has generated some heat, and I think part of that heat comes from the perception that the excellent community spirit of the project is somewhat undermined by the feeling that reasonable arguments are not being fully heard. How does one get that feeling? Is that a real question? Absolutely. What leads you to believe that the reasonable arguments aren't being heard? If one were to start a thread giving an idea and no one responds while vigorous discussion is happening in other threads, that would certainly be visible evidence of that idea not being fully heard. I'm something at a loss to guess how you would ascertain from a thread that has now gone past a hundred messages (most of which favor the side I presume you think the unheard arguments are coming from) that some of the arguments are not being fully heard. These kinds of decisions entail a lot of judgement calls. How many people are affected by an ABI incompatibility? How capable are they of coping with it? How many will walk back to Matlab because of it? No one knows the answers to these questions. In the absence of actual data, we make guesses and assumptions based on gut feelings distilled from past, anecdotal experience and logical arguments. We can discuss the logical arguments all day long and possibly reach a consensus on which arguments have valid structure and which don't. Arguments are either logically sound, or they're not. We can't really argue those gut feelings into a consensus. They come from personal experience which is different for each individual. They are simply not subject to argument. Hearing your gut feeling does little to change mine, but mine not changing doesn't mean that I ignored you or that I have a closed mind to your point of view. It's really quite easy, in a busy thread such as this one, to fail to address every stated point in detail even though you have considered them and still haven't changed your mind. Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you are blue in the face, but without real data to premise them on, they are no better than the gut feelings. They can often be significantly worse if the strength of the logic gets confused with the strength of the premise. -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you are blue in the face, but without real data to premise them on, they are no better than the gut feelings. They can often be significantly worse if the strength of the logic gets confused with the strength of the premise. If I recall correctly, the convention of not breaking ABI compatibility in minor releases was established in response to the last ABI compatibility break. Am I wrong? Darren ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 18:43, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you are blue in the face, but without real data to premise them on, they are no better than the gut feelings. They can often be significantly worse if the strength of the logic gets confused with the strength of the premise. If I recall correctly, the convention of not breaking ABI compatibility in minor releases was established in response to the last ABI compatibility break. Am I wrong? I'm not sure how this relates to the material quoted of me, but no, you're not wrong. -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Bruce Southey wrote: Not that I actually know much about it, but I thought that datetime is a 'rather large feature' difference both in terms of functionality and code. Definitely it will allow a unified date/time usage across various scikits and other projects that have time functions. That's a minor feature in the sense that it does not affect everyone. (according to who you speak, I guess datetime is not bigger than generalized ufunc or python 2.6 support). The general way of dealing with versions in open source is that major version change signifies a major API break and a major new/different feature set (the break usually being justified by the new feature set). Also, it should be noted that the ABI break that is now accepted and being worked upon is merely a developer convenience at the expense of our users. It is possible to make almost any change while still being ABI compatible in almost any library. For example, in the case of the datetime change, it could have been handled as a special case - this is ugly and inconvenient, but possible. That's why I am hoping that later on, we will be able to agree on making the necessary breaks to make it much more convenient for us to change things without breaking the ABI. cheers, David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Darren Dale wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you are blue in the face, but without real data to premise them on, they are no better than the gut feelings. They can often be significantly worse if the strength of the logic gets confused with the strength of the premise. If I recall correctly, the convention of not breaking ABI compatibility in minor releases was established in response to the last ABI compatibility break. Am I wrong? That's what I thought as well, but I checked this morning, and the actual number used for versioning has not changed since 1.0 (it is 0x0109). One issue was that we did not have a way to distinguish API change from ABI changes until 1.2.0 IIRC, and that it was relatively easy to break the ABI without changing any structure because of the way the code generator was coded. IOW, I don't think that an unchanged number means that we have kept ABI compatibility. I would like to think that having more regular binary installers helped getting more concern about the issues, but that's certainly falls into the gut's feeling department :) David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:01 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jpwrote: Darren Dale wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you are blue in the face, but without real data to premise them on, they are no better than the gut feelings. They can often be significantly worse if the strength of the logic gets confused with the strength of the premise. If I recall correctly, the convention of not breaking ABI compatibility in minor releases was established in response to the last ABI compatibility break. Am I wrong? That's what I thought as well, but I checked this morning, and the actual number used for versioning has not changed since 1.0 (it is 0x0109). One issue was that we did not have a way to distinguish API change from ABI changes until 1.2.0 IIRC, and that it was relatively easy to break the ABI without changing any structure because of the way the code generator was coded. IOW, I don't think that an unchanged number means that we have kept ABI compatibility. I would like to think that having more regular binary installers helped getting more concern about the issues, but that's certainly falls into the gut's feeling department :) The policy was established after the last urge to change the ABI. What happened before that is ancient history, events that took place in an time of tribal migrations and upheaval. It was a time when programmers struggled hand to hand with vicious code and treated coding style with disdain. A heroic era. But we're more civilized now ;) Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Gael Varoquaux gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 05:08:17PM -0500, Darren Dale wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jarrod Millman mill...@berkeley.edu wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called a) 1.5.0 b) 2.0.0 My vote goes to b. You don't matter. Nor do I. I definitely should have counted to 100 before sending that. It wasn't helpful and I apologize. Actually, Darren, I found you fairly entertaining. ;) Agreed. I found it actually helpful in hammering home something said by Travis that was somewhat ignored. Ryan -- Ryan May Graduate Research Assistant School of Meteorology University of Oklahoma ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 18:43, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you are blue in the face, but without real data to premise them on, they are no better than the gut feelings. They can often be significantly worse if the strength of the logic gets confused with the strength of the premise. If I recall correctly, the convention of not breaking ABI compatibility in minor releases was established in response to the last ABI compatibility break. Am I wrong? I'm not sure how this relates to the material quoted of me, but no, you're not wrong. Just trying to provide historical context to support the strength of the premise. Darren ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Hi, Is that a real question? Absolutely. What leads you to believe that the reasonable arguments aren't being heard? If one were to start a thread giving an idea and no one responds while vigorous discussion is happening in other threads, that would certainly be visible evidence of that idea not being fully heard. I'm something at a loss to guess how you would ascertain from a thread that has now gone past a hundred messages (most of which favor the side I presume you think the unheard arguments are coming from) that some of the arguments are not being fully heard. Of course we were always discussing judgement calls, and these are always going to be subjective, but I don't think that means that we can't hope to come to a reasoned agreement. I only wrote because I felt that we were beginning to drift towards a formal committee-style judgement in a situation where it has been pretty clear what the majority view was, and that we have to be careful about that, because it can reduce our feeling of shared ownership and responsibility - a feeling that numpy has been remarkably good at maintaining. See you, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 20:50, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 18:43, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you are blue in the face, but without real data to premise them on, they are no better than the gut feelings. They can often be significantly worse if the strength of the logic gets confused with the strength of the premise. If I recall correctly, the convention of not breaking ABI compatibility in minor releases was established in response to the last ABI compatibility break. Am I wrong? I'm not sure how this relates to the material quoted of me, but no, you're not wrong. Just trying to provide historical context to support the strength of the premise. The existence of the policy is not under question (anymore; I settled that with old email a while ago). The question is whether to change the policy. -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 21:05, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Is that a real question? Absolutely. What leads you to believe that the reasonable arguments aren't being heard? If one were to start a thread giving an idea and no one responds while vigorous discussion is happening in other threads, that would certainly be visible evidence of that idea not being fully heard. I'm something at a loss to guess how you would ascertain from a thread that has now gone past a hundred messages (most of which favor the side I presume you think the unheard arguments are coming from) that some of the arguments are not being fully heard. Of course we were always discussing judgement calls, and these are always going to be subjective, but I don't think that means that we can't hope to come to a reasoned agreement. I only wrote because I felt that we were beginning to drift towards a formal committee-style judgement in a situation where it has been pretty clear what the majority view was, and that we have to be careful about that, because it can reduce our feeling of shared ownership and responsibility - a feeling that numpy has been remarkably good at maintaining. Majorities don't make numpy development decisions normally. Never have. Not of the mailing list membership nor of the steering committee. Implementors do. When implementors disagree strongly and do not reach a consensus, then we fall back to majorities. But as I said before, majority voting requires conscientious control over the voting membership or it isn't majority voting. The process that you identified as being remarkably good at maintaining shared ownership and responsibility isn't majority rule, but consensus among implementors. We just don't have that right now, but we need to get stuff done anyways. -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 20:50, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 18:43, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you are blue in the face, but without real data to premise them on, they are no better than the gut feelings. They can often be significantly worse if the strength of the logic gets confused with the strength of the premise. If I recall correctly, the convention of not breaking ABI compatibility in minor releases was established in response to the last ABI compatibility break. Am I wrong? I'm not sure how this relates to the material quoted of me, but no, you're not wrong. Just trying to provide historical context to support the strength of the premise. The existence of the policy is not under question (anymore; I settled that with old email a while ago). The question is whether to change the policy. So I have gathered. I question whether the concerns that lead to that decision in the first place are somehow less important now. Darren ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 21:23, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 20:50, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 18:43, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you are blue in the face, but without real data to premise them on, they are no better than the gut feelings. They can often be significantly worse if the strength of the logic gets confused with the strength of the premise. If I recall correctly, the convention of not breaking ABI compatibility in minor releases was established in response to the last ABI compatibility break. Am I wrong? I'm not sure how this relates to the material quoted of me, but no, you're not wrong. Just trying to provide historical context to support the strength of the premise. The existence of the policy is not under question (anymore; I settled that with old email a while ago). The question is whether to change the policy. So I have gathered. I question whether the concerns that lead to that decision in the first place are somehow less important now. And we're back to gut feeling territory again. -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 21:27, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 21:23, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 20:50, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 18:43, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you are blue in the face, but without real data to premise them on, they are no better than the gut feelings. They can often be significantly worse if the strength of the logic gets confused with the strength of the premise. If I recall correctly, the convention of not breaking ABI compatibility in minor releases was established in response to the last ABI compatibility break. Am I wrong? I'm not sure how this relates to the material quoted of me, but no, you're not wrong. Just trying to provide historical context to support the strength of the premise. The existence of the policy is not under question (anymore; I settled that with old email a while ago). The question is whether to change the policy. So I have gathered. I question whether the concerns that lead to that decision in the first place are somehow less important now. And we're back to gut feeling territory again. That's unfair. I can't win based on gut, you know how skinny I am. Heh. Well-played. :-) -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 21:23, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 20:50, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 18:43, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you are blue in the face, but without real data to premise them on, they are no better than the gut feelings. They can often be significantly worse if the strength of the logic gets confused with the strength of the premise. If I recall correctly, the convention of not breaking ABI compatibility in minor releases was established in response to the last ABI compatibility break. Am I wrong? I'm not sure how this relates to the material quoted of me, but no, you're not wrong. Just trying to provide historical context to support the strength of the premise. The existence of the policy is not under question (anymore; I settled that with old email a while ago). The question is whether to change the policy. So I have gathered. I question whether the concerns that lead to that decision in the first place are somehow less important now. And we're back to gut feeling territory again. That's unfair. I can't win based on gut, you know how skinny I am. __ We haven't reached the extreme of the two physicists at SLAC who stepped outside to settle a point with fisticuffs. But with any luck we will get there ;) Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 21:23, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 20:50, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 18:43, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you are blue in the face, but without real data to premise them on, they are no better than the gut feelings. They can often be significantly worse if the strength of the logic gets confused with the strength of the premise. If I recall correctly, the convention of not breaking ABI compatibility in minor releases was established in response to the last ABI compatibility break. Am I wrong? I'm not sure how this relates to the material quoted of me, but no, you're not wrong. Just trying to provide historical context to support the strength of the premise. The existence of the policy is not under question (anymore; I settled that with old email a while ago). The question is whether to change the policy. So I have gathered. I question whether the concerns that lead to that decision in the first place are somehow less important now. And we're back to gut feeling territory again. That's unfair. I can't win based on gut, you know how skinny I am. __ We haven't reached the extreme of the two physicists at SLAC who stepped outside to settle a point with fisticuffs. But with any luck we will get there ;) Really? That also happened here at CHESS a long time ago, only they didn't go outside to fight over who got to use the conference room. ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 21:23, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 20:50, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 18:43, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you are blue in the face, but without real data to premise them on, they are no better than the gut feelings. They can often be significantly worse if the strength of the logic gets confused with the strength of the premise. If I recall correctly, the convention of not breaking ABI compatibility in minor releases was established in response to the last ABI compatibility break. Am I wrong? I'm not sure how this relates to the material quoted of me, but no, you're not wrong. Just trying to provide historical context to support the strength of the premise. The existence of the policy is not under question (anymore; I settled that with old email a while ago). The question is whether to change the policy. So I have gathered. I question whether the concerns that lead to that decision in the first place are somehow less important now. And we're back to gut feeling territory again. That's unfair. I can't win based on gut, you know how skinny I am. __ We haven't reached the extreme of the two physicists at SLAC who stepped outside to settle a point with fisticuffs. But with any luck we will get there ;) Really? That also happened here at CHESS a long time ago, only they didn't go outside to fight over who got to use the conference room. __ Heh. I can't vouch for the story personally, I got it from a guy who was a grad student back in the day working on a detector at Fermilab along with a cast of hundreds. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Hi, Majorities don't make numpy development decisions normally. Never have. Not of the mailing list membership nor of the steering committee. Implementors do. When implementors disagree strongly and do not reach a consensus, then we fall back to majorities. But as I said before, majority voting requires conscientious control over the voting membership or it isn't majority voting. The process that you identified as being remarkably good at maintaining shared ownership and responsibility isn't majority rule, but consensus among implementors. We just don't have that right now, but we need to get stuff done anyways. I think that's right, in general, but in this case, the primary disagreement was between David C+Chuck, and Travis, and there has been a large weight of the contributions to the list in favor of David's view. Now, you might say, I don't care about the weight of contributions because the people mailing don't implement, but that obviously has a social cost. All important arguments are resolved now, we've withdrawn the binary, agreed to a next ABI breaking release, and David's happy with 1.5 as a number, so I don't think we have to worry that discussion will delay getting stuff done at this point, See you, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com wrote: I will just work on trunk and assume that the next release will be ABI incompatible. At this point I would rather call the next version 1.5 than 2.0, though. When the date-time work is completed, then we could release an ABI-compatible-with-1.5 version 2.0. There may be repercussions if numpy starts deviating from its own conventions for what versions may introduce ABI incompatibilities. I attended a workshop recently where a number of scientists approached me and expressed interest in switching from IDL to python. Two of these were senior scientists leading large research groups and collaborations, both of whom had looked at python several years ago and decided they did not like the wild west nature (direct quote) of the scientific python community. I assured them that both the projects and community were maturing. At the time, I did not have to explain the situation concerning numpy-1.4.0, which, if it causes problems when they try to set up an environment to assess python, could put them off python for another 3 years, maybe even for good. It would be a lot easier to justify the disruption if one could say numpy-2.0 added support for some important features, so this disruption was unfortunate but necessary. Such disruptions are specified by major version changes, which as you can see are rare. In fact, there are no further major version changes envisioned at this time. That kind of statement might reassure a lot of people, including package maintainers etc. Regards, Darren P.S. I promise this will be my last post on the subject. ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Darren Dale dsdal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com wrote: I will just work on trunk and assume that the next release will be ABI incompatible. At this point I would rather call the next version 1.5 than 2.0, though. When the date-time work is completed, then we could release an ABI-compatible-with-1.5 version 2.0. There may be repercussions if numpy starts deviating from its own conventions for what versions may introduce ABI incompatibilities. I attended a workshop recently where a number of scientists approached me and expressed interest in switching from IDL to python. Two of these were senior scientists leading large research groups and collaborations, both of whom had looked at python several years ago and decided they did not like the wild west nature (direct quote) of the scientific python community. I assured them that both the projects and community were maturing. At the time, I did not have to explain the situation concerning numpy-1.4.0, which, if it causes problems when they try to set up an environment to assess python, could put them off python for another 3 years, maybe even for good. It would be a lot easier to justify the disruption if one could say numpy-2.0 added support for some important features, so this disruption was unfortunate but necessary. Such disruptions are specified by major version changes, which as you can see are rare. In fact, there are no further major version changes envisioned at this time. That kind of statement might reassure a lot of people, including package maintainers etc. Regards, Darren P.S. I promise this will be my last post on the subject. Don't be shy ;) You make good points and I agree with them. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com wrote: I will just work on trunk and assume that the next release will be ABI incompatible. At this point I would rather call the next version 1.5 than 2.0, though. When the date-time work is completed, then we could release an ABI-compatible-with-1.5 version 2.0. My view of the timeline for the 1.5 release is the end of February. I would prefer that we follow our previously discussed, agreed upon, and explicitly stated version numbering policy: * The releases will be numbered major.minor.bugfix * There will be no ABI changes in minor releases * There will be no API changes in bugfix releases In addition to it being our policy, it is also more closely aligned with my general expectations for any mature open source project. Just to be clear, I would prefer to see the ABI-breaking release be called 2.0. I don't see why we have to get the release out in three weeks, though. I think it would be better to use this opportunity to take some time to make sure we get it right. I am not suggesting that we delay for months. Instead, why don't we agree to consider ABI-breakage for to 2-3 weeks. Then close the discussion and try to get the 2.0 release out as quickly after that as possible. -- Jarrod Millman Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute 10 Giannini Hall, UC Berkeley http://cirl.berkeley.edu/ ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
Jarrod Millman wrote: Just to be clear, I would prefer to see the ABI-breaking release be called 2.0. I don't see why we have to get the release out in three weeks, though. I think it would be better to use this opportunity to take some time to make sure we get it right. As a compromise, what about the following: - remove ABI-incompatible changes for 1.4.x - release a 1.5.0 marked as experimental, with everything that Travis wants to put in. It would be a preview for python 3k as well, so it conveys the idea that it is experimental pretty well. - the 1.6.x branch would be a polished 1.5.x. The advantages is that 1.5.0 can be push relatively early, but we would still keep 1.4.0 as the stable release, against which every other binary installer should be built (scipy, mpl). cheers, David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?
I'm breaking my promise, after people wrote me offlist encouraging me to keep pushing my point of view. On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 8:23 PM, David Cournapeau da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote: Jarrod Millman wrote: Just to be clear, I would prefer to see the ABI-breaking release be called 2.0. I don't see why we have to get the release out in three weeks, though. I think it would be better to use this opportunity to take some time to make sure we get it right. As a compromise, what about the following: - remove ABI-incompatible changes for 1.4.x - release a 1.5.0 marked as experimental, with everything that Travis wants to put in. It would be a preview for python 3k as well, so it conveys the idea that it is experimental pretty well. Why can't this be called 2.0beta, with a __version__ like 1.9.96? I don't understand the reluctance to follow numpy's own established conventions. - the 1.6.x branch would be a polished 1.5.x. This could be called that 2.0.x instead of 1.6.x The advantages is that 1.5.0 ... or 2.0beta ... can be push relatively early, but we would still keep 1.4.0 as the stable release, against which every other binary installer should be built (scipy, mpl). Darren ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
