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
Hi David and all,
I have a few questions on setting up the build environment on OS X for
Windows binaries. I have Wine installed with Python 2.5 and 2.6, MakeNsis
and MinGW. The first question is what is meant in the Paver script by cpuid
plugin. Wine seems to know what to do with a cpuid
Hi,
I solved the problem:
GMail apparently filtered all numpy-ticket and numpy-svn mails into spam.
In case someone benefits from thins info.
-Sebastian
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Ryan May rma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Sebastian Haase seb.ha...@gmail.com
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi David and all,
I have a few questions on setting up the build environment on OS X for
Windows binaries. I have Wine installed with Python 2.5 and 2.6, MakeNsis
and MinGW. The first question is what is meant in
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 10:04 PM, Travis Oliphant
oliphant.tra...@ieee.org wrote:
Russell E. Owen wrote:
I often find myself doing simple math on sequences of numbers (which
might or might not be numpy arrays) where I want the result (and thus
the inputs) coerced to a particular data type.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:25 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi David and all,
I have a few questions on setting up the build environment on OS X for
Windows binaries. I have Wine installed with Python 2.5
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:25 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi David and all,
I have a few questions on setting up the build
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:06 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently scipy binaries are build with MingW 3.4.5, as far as I know,
which includes g77. The latest release of MingW uses gfortran, gcc
4.4.0
You mean gcc 3.4.5, and yes that's what I've got. MinGW itself is at
version
I have made an extension that also uses numpy.
I developed with Python 2.6 and numpy 1.4.0
This works all fine.
The problem is that users that use this extension get crahes from the moment
they use the extension and this because of numpy. It crashes when numpy is
initialised.
This because those
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Peter Notebaert p...@telenet.be wrote:
I have made an extension that also uses numpy.
I developed with Python 2.6 and numpy 1.4.0
This works all fine.
The problem is that users that use this extension get crahes from the
moment they use the extension and
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Peter Notebaert p...@telenet.be wrote:
I have made an extension that also uses numpy.
I developed with Python 2.6 and numpy 1.4.0
This works all fine.
The problem is that
I see that NumPy 1.4.0 is still the download
offered on SourceForge. Did I misunderstand
that a decision had been made to withdraw it,
at least until the ongoing discussion about
ABI breakage is resolved?
(Btw, as a user, I'm hoping Jarrod's sensible proposal
prevails in that discussion. That
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Alan G Isaac ais...@american.edu wrote:
I see that NumPy 1.4.0 is still the download
offered on SourceForge. Did I misunderstand
that a decision had been made to withdraw it,
at least until the ongoing discussion about
ABI breakage is resolved?
I went ahead
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
np.expand_dims has a name that I never remember and it's difficult to
search for in the help.
usage: it adds an axis e.g. after a reduce operation
Please ignore, this is a message for Mr. Google
Josef
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
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
55 matches
Mail list logo
