Sorry, I didn't saw the release candidate. I was away for 1 mounts and didn't read all my email in order.
Normally I try to test the release candidate, but I wasn't able this time. I have nothing to report again NumPy 1.7.1. I reread the previous emails and I remark that I badly read the first time one of them. I understood someone suggested to do a release candidate as if you didn't do that, but he wrote about not doing a 1.7.2 for datetime! Sorry for the noise. Fred On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Ondřej Čertík <[email protected]>wrote: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Frédéric Bastien <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > A big thanks for that release. > > > > I also think it would be useful to do a release candidate about this. > This > > release changed the behavior releated to python long and broke a test in > > Theano. Nothing important, but we could have fixed this before the > release. > > > > The numpy change is that a python long that don't fit in an int64, but > fit > > in an uint64, was throwing an overflow exception. Now it return an > uint64. > > My apologies for this. There was a release candidate here: > > http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2013-March/065948.html > > and I don't see any offending patch between the 1.7.1rc1 and 1.7.1. > > If the bugs are in numpy, would you please report it into issues? So > that we can fix it. > > Thanks, > Ondrej > _______________________________________________ > 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
