On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Bruce Southey <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Ralf Gommers > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Ralf Gommers < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Charles R Harris > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Ralf, > >>> > >>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Ralf Gommers > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> It's been a little over 6 months since the release of 1.6.0 and the NA > >>>> debate has quieted down, so I'd like to ask your opinion on the > timing of > >>>> 1.7.0. It looks to me like we have a healthy amount of bug fixes and > small > >>>> improvements, plus three larger chucks of work: > >>>> > >>>> - datetime > >>>> - NA > >>>> - Bento support > >>>> > >>>> My impression is that both datetime and NA are releasable, but should > be > >>>> labeled "tech preview" or something similar, because they may still > see > >>>> significant changes. Please correct me if I'm wrong. > >>>> > >>>> There's still some maintenance work to do and pull requests to merge, > >>>> but a beta release by Christmas should be feasible. What do you all > think? > >>>> > >>> > >>> I'm now thinking that is too optimistic. There are a fair number of > >>> tickets that need to be looked at, including some for einsum and the > >>> iterator, and I think the number of pull requests needs to be reduced. > How > >>> about sometime in the beginning of January? > >>> > >> > >> Yes, it certainly was. Besides the tickets and pull requests, we also > need > >> the support for MinGW 4.x that David is looking at. If that goes > smoothly > >> then the first week of January may be feasible, otherwise it'll have to > be > >> February (I'm traveling for most of Jan). Or someone else has to > volunteer > >> to be the release manager for this release. > > > > > > There isn't really much progress here. Besides a few smaller issues that > > still need attention, I think the MinGW 4.x issue is a blocker and needs > to > > be resolved. This can be done either by making it work, or deciding to > stick > > with 3.x. In the latter case numpy.datetime should be fixed somehow. > > > > For the next three weeks I'm traveling and won't be able to do any work > on > > numpy. I propose to keep master in a state that's (close to being) > > releasable until the blocker issue is resolved and we can create a 1.7.x > > branch. > > > > Ralf > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > > > I think that my ticket 1973 > (http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/1973) "Can not display a > masked array containing np.NA values even if masked" that is due to > the astype function not handling the NA object is also a blocker. > > I've set it to Milestone 1.7.0. This should be done for all tickets that are important for this release, so we can keep track of it. Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
