Re: Bug#999415: transition: pandas 1.1 -> 1.3 - to unstable now or not?

[Scott Talbert]

On Sun, 28 Nov 2021, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:

After build-testing about half of the reverse dependencies, failures that 
look new-pandas-related are cfgrib #1000726, joypy #1000727, python-skbio 
#1000752, and maybe hyperspy (not filed yet).


python-skbio and hyperspy already FTBFS for unrelated reasons (but fail more 
tests with new pandas), and joypy looks trivially fixable.


Given this and expecting to find a similar number in the other half, against 
pandas 1.3 working on python3.10 while 1.1 doesn't (#1000422), would you 
prefer to have pandas 1.3 in unstable now, or not?


My vote would be: go for it, but then again, I don't maintain any of 
pandas BDs.


Thanks,
Scott

Re: Bug#999415: transition: pandas 1.1 -> 1.3 - to unstable now or not?

[Rebecca N. Palmer]

After build-testing about half of the reverse dependencies, failures 
that look new-pandas-related are cfgrib #1000726, joypy #1000727, 
python-skbio #1000752, and maybe hyperspy (not filed yet).


python-skbio and hyperspy already FTBFS for unrelated reasons (but fail 
more tests with new pandas), and joypy looks trivially fixable.


Given this and expecting to find a similar number in the other half, 
against pandas 1.3 working on python3.10 while 1.1 doesn't (#1000422), 
would you prefer to have pandas 1.3 in unstable now, or not?