On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Julian Taylor <jtaylor.deb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > hi, > as you may know we want to release numpy 1.9 soon. We should have solved > most indexing regressions the first beta showed. > > The remaining blockers are finishing the new __numpy_ufunc__ feature. > This feature should allow for alternative method to overriding the > behavior of ufuncs from subclasses. > It is described here: > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/doc/neps/ufunc-overrides.rst > > The current blocker issues are: > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/4753 > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/4815 > > I'm not to familiar with all the complications of subclassing so I can't > really say how hard this is to solve. > My issue is that it there still seems to be debate on how to handle > operator overriding correctly and I am opposed to releasing a numpy with > yet another experimental feature that may or may not be finished > sometime later. Having datetime in infinite experimental state is bad > enough. > I think nobody is served well if we release 1.9 with the feature > prematurely based on a not representative set of users and the later > after more users showed up see we have to change its behavior. > > So I'm wondering if we should delay the introduction of this feature to > 1.10 or is it important enough to wait until there is a consensus on the > remaining issues?
-1 on delaying the release (but you knew I'd say that) I don't have a strong feeling about whether or not we should disable __numpy_ufunc__ for the 1.9 release based on those bugs. They don't seem obviously catastrophic to me, but you make a good point about datetime. I think it's your call as release manager... -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith Postdoctoral researcher - Informatics - University of Edinburgh http://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion