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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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__)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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,
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
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
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
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
___
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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'
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
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.
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
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
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
___
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
