I would like to release in may, before the sprint.
That is, if we are happy with where the codebase is at then.
If someone feels like they have the time end energy to create 0.18.2,
and we have enough reviewers to ensure quality, I'm not opposed.
I just won't be able to be of any help.
On 03/25/2017 09:32 PM, Joel Nothman wrote:
Yes, it's a pity that this has had to be delayed due to dev
unavailability, but I don't think we can risk a release without some
more quality assurance. My teaching atm, among other bits of life, is
also impacting on any free time, but even if I find more time, I've
already given my support to many of the PRs currently marked MRG+1
<https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=%22mrg%2B1%22&type=Issues> (have
I been too profligate with my approvals?!).
Is it worth waiting as long as until the June sprint, but promising to
close the release before end of June? Or else promising a release for
end of May and using the sprint to identify priorities for future
releases?
I think for the sake of the contributors, we should make sure that
many of the things that are mostly reviewed get merged before release.
For the sake of the users, we should make sure that as many bugs are
fixed as possible; apart from some wonderful work from Loïc, I feel
bug review has not been receiving as much attention as it should.
Perhaps Olivier's suggestion of 0.18.2 was good after all. :\
On 26 March 2017 at 06:54, Andreas Mueller <t3k...@gmail.com
<mailto:t3k...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I have no bandwidth to help. I will be able to help starting May 7th.
On 03/24/2017 05:26 PM, Raghav R V wrote:
Hi,
Are we still planning on an early April release for v0.19? Could
we start marking "blockers"?
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Andreas Mueller
<t3k...@gmail.com <mailto:t3k...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 02/07/2017 09:00 PM, Joel Nothman wrote:
On 12 January 2017 at 08:51, Gael Varoquaux
<gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org
<mailto:gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org>> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 08:41:51AM +1100, Joel Nothman
wrote:
> When the two versions deprecation policy was
instituted, releases were much
> more frequent... Is that enough of an excuse?
I'd rather say that we can here decide that we are
giving a longer grace
period.
I think that slow deprecations are a good things (see
titus's blog post
here:
http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2017-pof-software-archivability.html
<http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2017-pof-software-archivability.html>
)
Given that 0.18 was a very slow release, and the work for
removing deprecated material from 0.19 has already been
done, I don't think we should revert that. I agree that we
can delay the deprecation deadline for 0.20 and 0.21.
In terms of release schedule, are we aiming for RC in
early-mid March, assuming Andy's above prognostications are
correct and he is able to review in a bigger way in a week
or so?
Sometimes I wonder how Amazon ever gave me a job in
forecasting....
Spring break is March 13-17th ;)
_______________________________________________
scikit-learn mailing list
scikit-learn@python.org <mailto:scikit-learn@python.org>
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
<https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn>
--
Raghav RV
https://github.com/raghavrv
_______________________________________________
scikit-learn mailing list
scikit-learn@python.org <mailto:scikit-learn@python.org>
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
<https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn>
_______________________________________________ scikit-learn
mailing list scikit-learn@python.org
<mailto:scikit-learn@python.org>
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
<https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn>
_______________________________________________
scikit-learn mailing list
scikit-learn@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
_______________________________________________
scikit-learn mailing list
scikit-learn@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
