On Di, 2015-03-10 at 11:22 -0700, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Mar 10, 2015 11:15 AM, "Paul Hobson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Charles R Harris > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Paul Hobson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> I feel your pain. Making it worse, numpy.random.lognormal takes > "mean" and "sigma" as input. If there's ever a backwards incompatible > release, I hope these things will be cleared up. > >> > >> > >> There is a numpy 2.0 milestone ;) > >> > > > > Is it worth submitting PRs against the existing 2.X branch or is > that so far away that the can should be kicked down the road? > > Not sure what you mean by "the existing 2.X branch" (does such a thing > exist somewhere?), but yeah, don't submit PRs like that. Best case > they'd bit rot before we ever get around to 2.0, worst case 2.0 may > never happen. (What, you liked python 2 -> 3 so much you want to go > through that again?) >
We could try to maintain a list of things like this for others like blaze to not fall into the same pits. But then I this is likely not quite of that caliber ;). > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
