On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Ralf Gommers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:27 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Bruce Southey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Scipy release notes usually state the supported numpy version eg from >> > the current 0.8.0 release notes >> > "This release requires Python 2.4 - 2.6 and NumPy 1.4.1 or greater." >> > Consequently if you want to support different numpy versions, then you >> > will need to maintain your own branch with that type of patch. That can >> > get rather complex to maintain. >> >> I'm not doing the work of maintaining a scipy that conflicts with numpy. >> But *if* we want to support users that run numpy 1.3 with scipy 0.7, >> then we need to use different arguments for calls into numpy and >> scipy for depreciated and changed function arguments. >> >> > >> > It would be better that you change the code calling numpy/scipy >> > functions rather than the functions themselves such as passing the >> > appropriate *args and **kwargs to the function. >> > >> > I would expect that a try/except block would be more general as well as >> > numpy.__version__ being a str. >> >> Comparing strings is not a good idea, but I couldn't find anymore the >> function that parses a version string. > > There's parse_numpy_version in pavement.py. The relevant lines are: > a = re.compile("^([0-9]+)\.([0-9]+)\.([0-9]+)") > return tuple([int(i) for i in a.match(out).groups()[:3]]) > > >> >> As it might be obvious on the mailing list, I'm not a fan of frequent >> updates. With semi-annual releases, two versions only last a year. >> > Maybe you don't like the deprecation policy, but how can frequent (if > semi-annual can be called frequent) releases be a bad thing? No one likes to > write code that doesn't get released for ages.
Sorry, this was an ambiguous phrasing. I meant I don't like to update *my* computer very often, because I never know how much time it will take to get everything compatible again. I'm not criticizing the release policy, and I think you are doing a very good job (much better than we do with statsmodels.) Josef > > Ralf > > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
