On Jun 27, 2012, at 1:18 AM, Fernando Perez wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
I just want to speak up for the people who are affected by API breakage who
are not as vocal on this list.
Certainly! And indeed I bet you that's a community
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
Python in fact has the __future__ imports that help quite a bit for
people to start adapting their codes. How about creating a
numpy.future module where new, non-backward-compatible APIs could go?
That would give the
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io
wrote:
...
What should have happened in this case, in my mind, is that NumPy 1.4.0
should have been 1.5.0 and advertised that there was a
I do understand the issues around ABI breakage. I just want to speak up for
the people who are affected by API breakage who are not as vocal on this list.
I believe we should have similar frustration and concern at talk of API
breakage as there is about talk of ABI breakage.
-Travis
On
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
I just want to speak up for the people who are affected by API breakage who
are not as vocal on this list.
Certainly! And indeed I bet you that's a community underrepresented
here: those of us who are on this list
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
Hey all,
I made a branch called with_maskna and then merged Nathaniel's PR which
removes the mask_na support from master. I then applied a patch to fix the
boolean indexing problem reported by Ralf.
I then
On 06/26/2012 05:35 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertíkondrej.cer...@gmail.com
wrote:
My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress We have to
think about the implications of our changes on existing users. and
also that little changes
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 06/26/2012 05:35 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertíkondrej.cer...@gmail.com
wrote:
My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress We have to
think
On 06/26/2012 11:58 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 06/26/2012 05:35 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertíkondrej.cer...@gmail.com
wrote:
My understanding is
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Fernando Perez fperez@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io
wrote:
On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
On Jun 26, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Fernando Perez fperez@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.iowrote:
On Jun 26, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Fernando Perez fperez@gmail.com
wrote:
On
Let us note that that problem was due to Travis convincing David to include
the Datetime work in the release against David's own best judgement. The
result was a delay of several months until Ralf could get up to speed and
get 1.4.1 out. Let us also note that poly1d is actually not the
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Calling this and that 'gratuitous' is already damaging to the community.
Them's fightin' words. If you didn't want a fight you could have simply
pointed out a path forward.
I disagree. If a change is
On Jun 26, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Calling this and that 'gratuitous' is already damaging to the community.
Them's fightin' words. If you didn't want a fight you could have simply
pointed
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
Let us note that that problem was due to Travis convincing David to
include the Datetime work in the release against David's own best judgement.
The result was a delay of several months until Ralf could get up to speed
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:48 PM, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io
wrote:
Let us note that that problem was due to Travis convincing David to
include the Datetime work in the release against David's own best
I think Chuck alludes to the fact that I was rather reserved about
merging datetime before *anyone* knew about breaking the ABI. I don't
feel responsible for this issue (except I maybe should have pushed
more strongly about datetime being included), but I am also not
interested in making a
Or, we could raise funds for NumFOCUS by selling tickets for a brawl between
the two at SciPy2012...
I kid, I kid!
Thanks for the humor. Unfortunately, I would be no match physically with
someone used to the cold of Logan :-)
-Travis
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io
wrote:
Let us note that that problem was due to Travis convincing David to
include the Datetime work in the release against David's own best
Exactly.
I don't
feel responsible for this issue (except I maybe should have pushed
more strongly about datetime being included),
I think you left out a 'not'. I don't mean to imply that you were in anyway
the blame. And you have been pretty adamant about not allowing late merges of
On 06/26/2012 09:51 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
Exactly.
I don't
feel responsible for this issue (except I maybe should have pushed
more strongly about datetime being included),
I think you left out a 'not'. I don't mean to imply that you were in
anyway the blame. And you have
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.iowrote:
Exactly.
I don't
feel responsible for this issue (except I maybe should have pushed
more strongly about datetime being included),
I think you left out a 'not'. I don't mean to imply that you were in
anyway the
On 6/26/12 3:06 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Something the Sage project does very well is meeting often in person
Another thing we have that has improved the mailing list climate is a
sage-flame list [1] that serves as a venting release valve for anyone
to post *anything* at all. There
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 6/26/12 3:06 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Something the Sage project does very well is meeting often in person
Another thing we have that has improved the mailing list climate is a
sage-flame list [1]
+1 !
On Jun 26, 2012, at 3:27 PM, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 6/26/12 3:06 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Something the Sage project does very well is meeting often in person
Another thing we have that has
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Thouis (Ray) Jones tho...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 !
Speaking as someone trying to get started in contributing to numpy, I
find this discussion extremely off-putting. It's childish,
meaningless, and spiteful, and I think it's doing more harm than any
possible
On 6/26/12 3:31 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
Thank you for the reminder. I was already called out for not stopping.
Thanks, Dag. A flame-list might indeed be a good idea at this point if
there is further need for clearing the air
Also, having it set up before it is needed is part of
On 26 June 2012 22:39, John Hunter wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Thouis (Ray) Jones tho...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 !
Speaking as someone trying to get started in contributing to numpy, I
find this discussion extremely off-putting. It's childish,
meaningless, and spiteful, and I think
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com javascript:; wrote:
On 6/26/12 3:06 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Something the Sage project does very well is meeting often in person
Another thing we have
Travis, apologies in advance if the tone of this message is too strong -
please take it as a sign of how frustrating I find the discussion on this
point.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.iowrote:
...
What should have happened in this case, in my mind, is that
C was famous for bugs due to the lack of function prototypes. This was fixed
with C99 and the stricter typing was a great help.
Bugs are not due to lack of function prototypes. Bugs are due to mistakes
that programmers make (and I know all about mistakes programmers make).
Function
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.iowrote:
C was famous for bugs due to the lack of function prototypes. This was
fixed with C99 and the stricter typing was a great help.
Bugs are not due to lack of function prototypes. Bugs are due to
mistakes that
On Jun 25, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
Most folks aren't going to transition from MATLAB or IDL.
Engineers tend to stick with the tools they learned in school,
they aren't interested in the tool itself as long as they can get
their job done. And getting the job done is
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Perry Greenfield pe...@stsci.edu wrote:
On Jun 25, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
Most folks aren't going to transition from MATLAB or IDL.
Engineers tend to stick with the tools they learned in school,
they aren't interested in the tool
On Jun 25, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Perry Greenfield pe...@stsci.edu
wrote:
It's hard to generalize that much here. There are some areas in what
you say is true, particularly if whole industries rely on libraries
that have much time
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Perry Greenfield pe...@stsci.edu wrote:
On Jun 25, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Perry Greenfield pe...@stsci.edu
wrote:
It's hard to generalize that much here. There are some areas in what
you say is
You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was made
in the previous class --- made in Numeric actually.
You made a change to that. It is the change that is 'gratuitous'. The pain
and unnecessary overhead of having two competing standards is the problem ---
not
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was
made in the previous class --- made in Numeric actually.
You made a change to that. It is the change that is 'gratuitous'.
As someone who
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was
made in the previous class --- made in Numeric actually.
You made a change to that. It is the change that is 'gratuitous'. The pain
and
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was
made in the previous class --- made in Numeric actually.
You made a change to
On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was
made in the previous class --- made in Numeric actually.
You made a change to that. It is
On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:53 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was
made in the previous
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:53 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io
wrote:
You are still
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
For context, consider that for many years, the word gratuitous has been
used in a non-derogatory way in the Python ecosystem to describe changes to
semantics and
On Jun 25, 2012, at 9:38 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
For context, consider that for many years, the word gratuitous has been
used in a non-derogatory way in the
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Fernando Perez fperez@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
For context, consider that for many years, the word gratuitous has been
used in a
That's a nice argument for a different convention, really it is. It's not
enough for changing a convention that already exists. Now, the polynomial
object could store coefficients in this order, but allow construction with
the coefficients in the standard convention order. That would
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Fernando Perez fperez@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
For
I just want to note that I'm not advocating for *any*
backwards-compatibility breakage in numpy at this point... I was just
providing context for a discussion that happened back in 2009, and in
the scipy list. I certainly feel pretty strongly at this point about
the importance of
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.com wrote:
My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress We have to
think about the implications of our changes on existing users. and
also that little changes (with the best intentions!) that however mean
either
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:35 PM, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.com
wrote:
My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress We have to
think about the implications of our changes on existing users. and
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:35 PM, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.com
wrote:
My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress
On Jun 25, 2012, at 10:35 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.com
wrote:
My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress We have to
think about the implications of our changes on existing users. and
also that little
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
On Jun 25, 2012, at 10:35 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.com
wrote:
My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress We have to
think
In the present climate, I'm going to have to provide additional context to a
comment like this. This is not an accurate enough characterization of
events. I was trying to get date-time changes in, for sure. I generally
like feature additions to NumPy. (Robert Kern was also involved
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
I agree a decision needs to be made. I think we will need to break the ABI.
At this point, I don't know of any pressing features that would require it
short of NumPy 2.0.
Sorry, I don't quite know how to parse
On Jun 26, 2012, at 12:09 AM, Fernando Perez wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
I agree a decision needs to be made. I think we will need to break the
ABI.At this point, I don't know of any pressing features that would
require it short
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
Eventually we will need to break the ABI. We might as well wait until 2.0
at this point.
Ah, got it; thanks for the clarification, I just didn't understand the original.
Cheers,
f
What has been done in the past is that an intent to fork is announced some
two weeks in advance so that people can weigh in on what needs to be done
before the fork. The immediate fork was a bit hasty. Likewise, when I
suggested going to the github issue tracking, I opened a discussion
On Jun 23, 2012, at 4:23 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
What has been done in the past is that an intent to fork is announced some
two weeks in advance so that people can weigh in on what needs to be done
On Jun 23, 2012, at 7:12 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones tho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
What has been done in the past is that an intent to fork is announced some
On 06/23/2012 05:14 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io
mailto:tra...@continuum.io wrote:
The usual practice is to announce a schedule first.
I just did announce the schedule.
What has been done in the past is that an
On 06/23/2012 09:32 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/23/2012 05:14 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Travis Oliphanttra...@continuum.io
mailto:tra...@continuum.io wrote:
The usual practice is to announce a schedule first.
I just did announce the
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
What has been done in the past is that an intent to fork is announced some
two weeks in advance so that people can weigh in on what needs to be done
before the fork. The immediate fork was a bit hasty. Likewise,
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones tho...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
What has been done in the past is that an intent to fork is announced
some
two weeks in advance so that people can weigh in on what
The usual practice is to announce a schedule first.
I just did announce the schedule.
There is time before the first Release candidate to make changes on the 1.7.x
branch. If you want to make the changes on master, and just indicate the
Pull requests, Ondrej can make sure they
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.iowrote:
The usual practice is to announce a schedule first.
I just did announce the schedule.
What has been done in the past is that an intent to fork is announced some
two weeks in advance so that people can weigh in on
Hey all,
I made a branch called with_maskna and then merged Nathaniel's PR which removes
the mask_na support from master. I then applied a patch to fix the boolean
indexing problem reported by Ralf.
I then created a NumPy 1.7.x maintenance branch from which the release of NumPy
1.7 will
Hi,
Glad to see that 1.7 is coming soon !
Le 21/06/2012 12:11, Travis Oliphant a écrit :
NumPy 1.7 is a significant release and has several changes many of which are
documented in the release notes.
I browsed the sources on github and ended up here :
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.iowrote:
Hey all,
I made a branch called with_maskna and then merged Nathaniel's PR which
removes the mask_na support from master. I then applied a patch to fix the
boolean indexing problem reported by Ralf.
I then created
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.iowrote:
Hey all,
I made a branch called with_maskna and then merged Nathaniel's PR which
removes the mask_na support from master. I then
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.iowrote:
I thought it was clear we were doing a 1.7 release before SciPy. It
seems pretty urgent that we get something out sooner than later. I
know there is never enough time to do all the things we want to do.
The
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.iowrote:
One particularly glaring example to my lens on the world: I think it
would have been better to define new macros which require
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.iowrote:
I thought it was clear we were doing a 1.7 release before SciPy. It
seems pretty urgent that we get something out sooner than later. I
know there is never enough time to do all the things we want to do.
There
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io
wrote:
I thought it was clear we were doing a 1.7 release before SciPy. It
seems pretty urgent that we get something out sooner than later.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Wes McKinney wesmck...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io
wrote:
I thought it was clear we were doing a 1.7 release
77 matches
Mail list logo
