I am not sure what you mean by cherry-picking/uncherry picking. I just
looked at what is on `color_overhaul` which is not in master and it is:
changes that should be discarded (changes to cxx / changes to _tri.* that
rely on cxx), one change related to mathtext layout (and conflicts due to
mathext
On Jun 16, 2015 7:31 PM, "Juan Nunez-Iglesias" wrote:
>
> As long as A and B are included as named options, I have no objections to
D as default.
Yeah, all the colormaps will be available over way or another, it's just
the default in question.
-n
-
As long as A and B are included as named options, I have no objections to D
as default. (From a branding perspective though, I preferred being closer
to GNUPlot than Matlab, but whatevs. Show MPL's roots I guess! =)
Juan.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Greetings, mat
As a heads up, there is now a `pyplot` and a `pylab` packages on pypi.
I have created an issue with the pypi folks
https://sourceforge.net/p/pypi/support-requests/512/
and with both projects
https://github.com/javipalanca/pylab/issues/1
https://github.com/sirrice/pyplot/issues/2
I found both of t
Greetings, matplotliberators!
I've counted up the various "votes" people made regarding the
different colormap options at
https://bids.github.io/colormap
including the ones in the matplotlib-devel and -users threads and
elsewhere (private email, twitter), etc.
There were two phases -- some peop
The only concerns on doing 1.5 -> 2.0 come from the huge amount of extra work
in uncherrypicking recherrypicking. Given the amount of testing that both
master and color-overhaul have gone through by us devs and other interested
people, I feel it perhaps better to keep the release schedule as it
Following up on the last email, I would like to aim for a 1.5 release at
the end of July, with the sprint at scipy being focused on finishing it
off. The 2.0 color/style release will happen (hopefully soon) after that.
Does this schedule seem ok to everyone?
I have started to triage the issues/
