On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Jaime Fernández del Río
wrote:
> We have the PyArrayObject vs PyArrayObject_fields definition in
> ndarraytypes.h that is used to enforce access to the members through inline
> functions rather than directly, which seems to me like the right
Hi Antoine,
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:44 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Hi Nathaniel,
>
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 21:13:30 -0700
> Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> Given this, I propose that for 1.11 we:
>> 1) go ahead and hide/disable the problematic parts of the
On 2015-09-20 11:20:28, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> I would recommend three possible adjustments to the steering council
> concept.
>
> 1 - define a BDFL for the council. I would nominate chuck Harris
>
> 2 - limit the council to 3 people. I would nominate chuck, nathaniel,
>
> until then our only real options are either hard breaks or nothing, so
> unless we want to do a hard break there's not much point talking about
> it.
I think this is the most important sentence from this thread. Thank you
Nathaniel for you extremely thorough analysis of the impact on
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Matthew Brett
wrote:
> Hi Travis, and all,
>
> You might have seen I was advocating for having someone who takes
> final responsibility for the project, partly to get discussions
> unstuck, as you said.
>
> I agree with Chris, that at
> On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:42 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Bryan Van de Ven wrote:
>
> > On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> >
> > The second problem is that you have a
> On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>
> The second problem is that you have a potential conflict of interest,
> in that it is possible for the needs of Continuum to conflict with the
> needs of numpy. I believe, from previous emails on this list, that
Hi,
We have just released numpy 1.9.3, a small bugfix release to fix a bug
on Python 3.5, as well as some build issues.
You likely only need to upgrade from 1.9.2 if you are on Python 3.5.
There are source and OSX wheels up on pypi. We currently have no
plans to add 1.9.3 to the sourceforge
Hi Travis, and all,
You might have seen I was advocating for having someone who takes
final responsibility for the project, partly to get discussions
unstuck, as you said.
I agree with Chris, that at this stage, there is no-one who could be
Benevolent Dictator for the project. It seems to me
Hi All,
Just a heads up. The lack of reported problems in 1.10.0b1 has been
stunning.
Chuck
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
We have the PyArrayObject vs PyArrayObject_fields definition in
ndarraytypes.h that is used to enforce access to the members through inline
functions rather than directly, which seems to me like the right way to
go: don't leave stones unturned, hide everything and provide PyUFunc_NIN,
I wrote my recommendations quickly before heading on a plane.I hope the
spirit of them was caught correctly.I also want to re-emphasize that I
completely understand that the Steering Council is not to be making
decisions that often and almost all activity will be similar to it is now
---
On Mo, 2015-09-21 at 11:32 +0200, Sebastian Berg wrote:
> On So, 2015-09-20 at 11:20 -0700, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> > After long conversations at BIDS this weekend and after reading the
> > entire governance document, I realized that the steering council is
> > very large and I don't agree with
Hi Nathaniel,
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 21:13:30 -0700
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Given this, I propose that for 1.11 we:
> 1) go ahead and hide/disable the problematic parts of the ABI/API,
> 2) coordinate with the known affected projects to minimize disruption
> to their users (which
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Travis Oliphant
wrote:
> After long conversations at BIDS this weekend and after reading the entire
> governance document, I realized that the steering council is very large
>
How large are we talking? I think there were 8 people named --
On So, 2015-09-20 at 11:20 -0700, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> After long conversations at BIDS this weekend and after reading the
> entire governance document, I realized that the steering council is
> very large and I don't agree with the mechanism by which it is
> chosen.
>
Hmmm, well I never
16 matches
Mail list logo