On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Ralf Gommers <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Charles R Harris < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I'd like to mark current PR's for inclusion in 1.10. >> > > Good idea. If you're going to do this, it may be helpful to create a new > 1.10 milestone and keep but clean up the "1.10 blockers" milestone so there > are only real blockers in there. > Good idea. > > >> If there is something that you want to have in the release, please >> mention it here by PR #.I think new enhancement PR's should be considered >> for 1.11 rather than 1.10, but bug fixes will go in. >> > > Assuming you mean "no guarantees for anything that comes in from now on", > rather then "no one is allowed to merge new enhancements PRs before the > release split" - makes sense. > > There is some flexibility, of course, as there are always last minute >> items that come up when release contents are begin decided. >> > > I had a look through the complete set again. Of the ones that are not yet > marked for 1.10, those that look important to get in are: > Thanks for taking a look. > - new "contract" function (#5488) > - the whole set of numpy.ma PRs > - the two numpy.distutils PRs (#4378, #5597) > - rewrite of docs on indexing (#4331) > - deciding on a bool indexing deprecation (#4353) > - weighted covariance for corrcoef (#4960) > > There are too many PRs marked as "1.10 blockers", I think the only real > blockers are: > - __numpy_ufunc__ PRs (#4815, #4855) > - sgemv segfault workaround (#5237) > - fix for alignment issue (#5656) > - resolving the debate on diagonal (#5407) > > Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
