Hi,
> Majorities don't make numpy development decisions normally. Never
> have. Not of the mailing list membership nor of the steering
> committee. Implementors do. When implementors disagree strongly and do
> not reach a consensus, then we fall back to majorities. But as I said
> before, majority
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Robe
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Robert Kern
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 21:23, Darren Dale wr
np.expand_dims has a name that I never remember and it's difficult to
search for in the help.
usage: it adds an axis e.g. after a reduce operation
Please ignore, this is a message for Mr. Google
Josef
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Robert Kern
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 21:23, Darren Dale wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Robert Kern
>> >> wrote:
>
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Robert Kern
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 21:23, Darren Dale wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Robert Kern
> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 20:50, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Mon, Feb
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 21:27, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 21:23, Darren Dale wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 20:50, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 21:23, Darren Dale wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 20:50, Darren Dale wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 a
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 21:23, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 20:50, Darren Dale wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 18:43, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 20:50, Darren Dale wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 18:43, Darren Dale wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> Here's the problem tha
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 21:05, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> Is that a real question?
>>
>> Absolutely. What leads you to believe that the reasonable arguments
>> aren't being heard? If one were to start a thread giving an idea and
>> no one responds while vigorous discussion is happening in oth
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 20:50, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 18:43, Darren Dale wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical
argume
Hi,
>> Is that a real question?
>
> Absolutely. What leads you to believe that the reasonable arguments
> aren't being heard? If one were to start a thread giving an idea and
> no one responds while vigorous discussion is happening in other
> threads, that would certainly be visible evidence of th
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 18:43, Darren Dale wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>>> Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical
>>> arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answerin
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Ralf Gommers
wrote:
> Hi David and all,
>
> I have a few questions on setting up the build environment on OS X for
> Windows binaries. I have Wine installed with Python 2.5 and 2.6, MakeNsis
> and MinGW. The first question is what is meant in the Paver script by "cp
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Gael Varoquaux
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 05:08:17PM -0500, Darren Dale wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jarrod Millman
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris
>> >>
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:01 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> Darren Dale wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern
> wrote:
> >> Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical
> >> arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these
> >> question
Darren Dale wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>> Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical
>> arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these
>> questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you are
>> blue
Bruce Southey wrote:
>
> Not that I actually know much about it, but I thought that datetime is
> a 'rather large feature' difference both in terms of functionality and
> code. Definitely it will allow a unified date/time usage across
> various scikits and other projects that have time functions.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 18:43, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>> Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical
>> arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these
>> questions. You can make perfectly structured a
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical
> arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these
> questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you are
> blue in the face, but without
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 17:43, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> I'm continuing only because, the discussion has generated some heat,
>>> and I think part of that heat comes from the perception that the
>>> excellent community spirit of the project is somewhat undermined by
>>> the feeling that reas
Charles R Harris wrote:
> Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called
>
> a) 1.5.0
> b) 2.0.0
Classic bicycle shed designing... but I like designing bicycle sheds, so
I'll make this comment:
2.0 "appears" to the average user to be a big enough deal that they
might ex
Hi,
>> I'm continuing only because, the discussion has generated some heat,
>> and I think part of that heat comes from the perception that the
>> excellent community spirit of the project is somewhat undermined by
>> the feeling that reasonable arguments are not being fully heard.
>
> How does on
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 17:03, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> That is correct. And having failed to find a consensus solution and
>> with several of the people doing the actual work disagreeing (which is
>> neither you, nor I, nor Darren, nor most readers on this list who have
>> weighed in on the
Hi,
> That is correct. And having failed to find a consensus solution and
> with several of the people doing the actual work disagreeing (which is
> neither you, nor I, nor Darren, nor most readers on this list who have
> weighed in on the discussion phase and may feel miffed about not
> getting a
On Feb 8, 2010, at 5:38 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Travis Oliphant
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think we need to make that decision now. It seems to have gotten hung up
>> in conflicts that need to be resolved. How should we go about it? Does the
>> numpy steering co
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Jarrod Millman wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>>> Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called
>>>
>>> a) 1.5.0
>>> b) 2.0.0
>>
>> My vot
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 16:32, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> No, there isn't. Consensus means everyone, not just a strong majority.
>>
>> http://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html
>
> I stand corrected. I meant then, that there's a strong majority
> agreement on what to do.
That is correct. An
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
>
> I think we need to make that decision now. It seems to have gotten hung up
> in conflicts that need to be resolved. How should we go about it? Does the
> numpy steering council (name?) have a role here.
>
> It seems like consensus has be
> No, there isn't. Consensus means everyone, not just a strong majority.
>
> http://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html
I stand corrected. I meant then, that there's a strong majority
agreement on what to do.
See you,
Matthew
___
NumPy-Discuss
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 16:27, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Trust me, the steering committee would much prefer not to decide
>> anything by any means.
>
> I do trust you ;)
>
> Looking at the emails, it seems to me there's quite a strong consensus.
No, there isn't. Consensus means everyone, not just a
> Trust me, the steering committee would much prefer not to decide
> anything by any means.
I do trust you ;)
Looking at the emails, it seems to me there's quite a strong consensus.
You don't mean that the steering committee is needed when people on
the steering committee don't agree with the co
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>> You don't matter. Nor do I.
>
> I definitely should have counted to 100 before sending that. It wasn't
> helpful and I apologize.
No worries, your first email brought a smile to my face.
___
NumPy-Di
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 16:10, Matthew Brett wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 16:05, Darren Dale wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jarrod Millman wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> Should t
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Jarrod Millman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>> Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called
>>
>> a) 1.5.0
>> b) 2.0.0
>
> My vote goes to b.
I guess Travis' point is that 2.0 implies rather larg
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 16:05, Darren Dale wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jarrod Millman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris
>>> wrote:
Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be cal
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 05:08:17PM -0500, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jarrod Millman wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris
> >> wrote:
> >>> Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jarrod Millman wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>>> Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called
>>>
>>> a) 1.5.0
>>> b) 2.0.0
>>
>> My vote goes to
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 16:05, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jarrod Millman wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>>> Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called
>>>
>>> a) 1.5.0
>>> b) 2.0.0
>>
>> My vote goes to b.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jarrod Millman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>> Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called
>>
>> a) 1.5.0
>> b) 2.0.0
>
> My vote goes to b.
You don't matter. Nor do I.
__
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called
>
> a) 1.5.0
> b) 2.0.0
My vote goes to b.
Jarrod
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Jarrod Millman wrote:
>>
>>> I went ahead and set the default download for N
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Feb 8, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Jarrod Millman wrote:
>
>> I went ahead and set the default download for NumPy back to the 1.3.0
>> release on sourceforge. I also added a news i
On Feb 8, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Jarrod Millman
wrote:
I went ahead and set the default download for NumPy back to the 1.3.0
release on sourceforge. I also added a news item stating that 1.4.0
has temporarily been pulled due to the unin
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Jarrod Millman wrote:
> I went ahead and set the default download for NumPy back to the 1.3.0
> release on sourceforge. I also added a news item stating that 1.4.0
> has temporarily been pulled due to the unintended ABI break pending a
> decision by the developers
I went ahead and set the default download for NumPy back to the 1.3.0
release on sourceforge. I also added a news item stating that 1.4.0
has temporarily been pulled due to the unintended ABI break pending a
decision by the developers. Currently, the 1.4.0 release can still be
accessed if you go
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> I see that NumPy 1.4.0 is still the download
> offered on SourceForge. Did I misunderstand
> that a decision had been made to withdraw it,
> at least until the ongoing discussion about
> ABI breakage is resolved?
I went ahead and set the def
I see that NumPy 1.4.0 is still the download
offered on SourceForge. Did I misunderstand
that a decision had been made to withdraw it,
at least until the ongoing discussion about
ABI breakage is resolved?
(Btw, as a user, I'm hoping Jarrod's sensible proposal
prevails in that discussion. That pr
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Peter Notebaert wrote:
>
>> I have made an extension that also uses numpy.
>> I developed with Python 2.6 and numpy 1.4.0
>> This works all fine.
>>
>> The problem is that users that use this extensio
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Peter Notebaert wrote:
> I have made an extension that also uses numpy.
> I developed with Python 2.6 and numpy 1.4.0
> This works all fine.
>
> The problem is that users that use this extension get crahes from the
> moment they use the extension and this because
I have made an extension that also uses numpy.
I developed with Python 2.6 and numpy 1.4.0
This works all fine.
The problem is that users that use this extension get crahes from the moment
they use the extension and this because of numpy. It crashes when numpy is
initialised.
This because those us
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:06 PM, wrote:
> >> Currently scipy binaries are build with MingW 3.4.5, as far as I know,
> >> which includes g77. The latest release of MingW uses gfortran, gcc
> >> 4.4.0
> >
> > You mean gcc 3.4.5, and yes that's what I've got. MinGW itself is at
> version
> > 5.1.6 n
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Ralf Gommers
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:25 PM, wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>> > Hi David and all,
>> >
>> > I have a few questions on setting up the build environment on OS X for
>> > Windows binaries. I have Win
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:25 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
> > Hi David and all,
> >
> > I have a few questions on setting up the build environment on OS X for
> > Windows binaries. I have Wine installed with Python 2.5 and 2.6, MakeNsis
> > and MinGW. The fi
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 10:04 PM, Travis Oliphant
wrote:
> Russell E. Owen wrote:
>> I often find myself doing simple math on sequences of numbers (which
>> might or might not be numpy arrays) where I want the result (and thus
>> the inputs) coerced to a particular data type.
>>
>> I'd like to be
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Ralf Gommers
wrote:
> Hi David and all,
>
> I have a few questions on setting up the build environment on OS X for
> Windows binaries. I have Wine installed with Python 2.5 and 2.6, MakeNsis
> and MinGW. The first question is what is meant in the Paver script by "cp
Hi,
I solved the problem:
GMail apparently filtered all numpy-ticket and numpy-svn mails into spam.
In case someone benefits from thins info.
-Sebastian
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Ryan May wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Sebastian Haase wrote:
>> Hi,
>> long time ago I had s
Hi David and all,
I have a few questions on setting up the build environment on OS X for
Windows binaries. I have Wine installed with Python 2.5 and 2.6, MakeNsis
and MinGW. The first question is what is meant in the Paver script by "cpuid
plugin". Wine seems to know what to do with a cpuid instru
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:23 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> Jarrod Millman wrote:
>> Just
>> to be clear, I would prefer to see the ABI-breaking release be called
>> 2.0. I don't see why we have to get the release out in three weeks,
>> though. I think it would be better to use this opportunity
60 matches
Mail list logo
