Re: Bug#999415: transition: pandas 1.1 -> 1.3 - to unstable now or not?
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?
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?
Re: Bug#999415: transition: pandas 1.1 -> 1.3
Control: block 996584 by -1 On 21/11/2021 06:30, Graham Inggs wrote: It might be easier to upgrade to 1.2.4 first, then 1,3,x later. Probably not, given that we're now trying to add Python 3.10 support (#996584), and pandas upstream's work on that is recent (maybe still unfinished): https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/issues/41940 The 1.3.x currently in Salsa built last time I tried (before Python 3.10), but is (intentionally, to avoid FTBFS) missing some documentation, and I haven't tested the reverse dependencies yet.
Re: transition: pandas 1.1 -> 1.3
It might be easier to upgrade to 1.2.4 first, then 1,3,x later.
Re: transition: pandas 1.1 -> 1.3
I was already planning to try a build+autopkgtest of the reverse dependencies, and probably an upload to experimental (it's also common for pandas to fail a few tests on non-amd64), at some point, but not just yet. (The last time I did this was #969650.) Thanks for the tools suggestions. I am currently working on pandas itself: I suspect the documentation isn't the only issue.
Re: transition: pandas 1.1 -> 1.3
Hi Rebecca, Am Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 09:31:12PM + schrieb Rebecca N. Palmer: > I was already planning to try a build+autopkgtest of the reverse > dependencies, and probably an upload to experimental (it's also common for > pandas to fail a few tests on non-amd64), at some point, but not just yet. > (The last time I did this was #969650.) > > Thanks for the tools suggestions. > > I am currently working on pandas itself: I suspect the documentation isn't > the only issue. Thanks a lot for taking over Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: transition: pandas 1.1 -> 1.3
On 11 November 2021 5:44:09 am IST, Drew Parsons wrote: >On 2021-11-10 20:19, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: >> Source: pandas >> >> On 10/11/2021 17:14, Andreas Tille wrote: >>> pandas is lagging behind upstream by several versions. I guess we >>> should try to get in sync with upstream a bit more. >> >> Yes, but please don't upload this yet: it's common for a pandas >> upgrade to break reverse dependencies. > > >If the new pandas builds successfully, then certainly upload it to >experimental first. We can test dependencies from there. That makes sense, but other than that, I'd really recommend also to build the reverse-"build"-deps with ruby-team/meta or ratt. Uploading to experimental and checking Britney's pseudoexcuses would only warrant for failing autopkgtests in other packages because of new pandas. Regards, Nilesh
Re: transition: pandas 1.1 -> 1.3
Hi, Am Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 07:17:27PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra: > > >If the new pandas builds successfully, then certainly upload it to > >experimental first. We can test dependencies from there. ^^ > That makes sense, but other than that, I'd really recommend also to build the > reverse-"build"-deps with ruby-team/meta or ratt. > > Uploading to experimental and checking Britney's pseudoexcuses would only > warrant for failing autopkgtests in other packages because of new pandas. That's all fine but the precondition is not fulfilled (see above) and we need people who fix the build first ... than we can follow all those hints. My initial attempt was just a kickstart to get something happen but I do not intend to continue working on this in this month (may be year). Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: transition: pandas 1.1 -> 1.3
On 2021-11-10 20:19, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: Source: pandas On 10/11/2021 17:14, Andreas Tille wrote: pandas is lagging behind upstream by several versions. I guess we should try to get in sync with upstream a bit more. Yes, but please don't upload this yet: it's common for a pandas upgrade to break reverse dependencies. If the new pandas builds successfully, then certainly upload it to experimental first. We can test dependencies from there. Drew
transition: pandas 1.1 -> 1.3
Source: pandas Version: 1.1.5+dfsg-2 Severity: wishlist On 10/11/2021 17:14, Andreas Tille wrote: pandas is lagging behind upstream by several versions. I guess we should try to get in sync with upstream a bit more. Yes, but please don't upload this yet: it's common for a pandas upgrade to break reverse dependencies. The package does not build yet since the documentation needs sphinx_panels. On 10/11/2021 18:32, Timo Röhling wrote> Maybe, as a compromise, we can cut out all the notebooks^H bells and whistles and limit the offline documentation to the API reference itself, which is arguably the most useful part? I don't know how easy it is to trim down the documentation, though. The pandas (and probably statsmodels) documentation already is modified to build with fewer dependencies - see sphinx_no_pandas_theme.patch.
