Re: [Numpy-discussion] Status Report for NumPy 1.1.0

2008-05-08 Thread Charles Doutriaux
I don't think it is reasonable to say the trunk is in good shape when the power function does not work... Just my thoughts... C. Charles R Harris wrote: Hi Jarrod, On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 2:40 AM, Jarrod Millman [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, The trunk

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Status Report for NumPy 1.1.0

2008-05-08 Thread Charles R Harris
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Charles Doutriaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think it is reasonable to say the trunk is in good shape when the power function does not work... Just my thoughts... Is that ticket #301? What are you suggesting it do? Chuck

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Status Report for NumPy 1.1.0

2008-05-07 Thread Jarrod Millman
I have just created the 1.1.x branch: http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/numpy/changeset/5134 In about 24 hours I will tag the 1.1.0 release from the branch. At this point only critical bug fixes should be applied to the branch. The trunk is now open for 1.2 development. Thanks, -- Jarrod Millman

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Status Report for NumPy 1.1.0

2008-05-07 Thread Albert Strasheim
Hello, On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Jarrod Millman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have just created the 1.1.x branch: http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/numpy/changeset/5134 In about 24 hours I will tag the 1.1.0 release from the branch. At this point only critical bug fixes should be applied

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Status Report for NumPy 1.1.0

2008-05-07 Thread Stéfan van der Walt
2008/5/7 Albert Strasheim [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Even better: let the Buildbot do it. You should see some Valgrind output appearing in the testing output of the Linux_x86_Fedora_Py2.6 builder soon. I'll probably have to tune things a bit to make it go green/red in the right situations.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Status Report for NumPy 1.1.0

2008-05-07 Thread Anne Archibald
2008/5/7 Jarrod Millman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have just created the 1.1.x branch: http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/numpy/changeset/5134 In about 24 hours I will tag the 1.1.0 release from the branch. At this point only critical bug fixes should be applied to the branch. The trunk is now

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Status Report for NumPy 1.1.0

2008-05-07 Thread Charles R Harris
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Anne Archibald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/5/7 Jarrod Millman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have just created the 1.1.x branch: http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/numpy/changeset/5134 In about 24 hours I will tag the 1.1.0 release from the branch. At this point

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Status Report for NumPy 1.1.0

2008-05-07 Thread Anne Archibald
2008/5/7 Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Anne Archibald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/5/7 Jarrod Millman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have just created the 1.1.x branch: http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/numpy/changeset/5134 In about 24 hours I will tag

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Status Report for NumPy 1.1.0

2008-05-07 Thread Charles R Harris
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Anne Archibald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/5/7 Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Anne Archibald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/5/7 Jarrod Millman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have just created the 1.1.x branch:

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Status Report for NumPy 1.1.0

2008-05-07 Thread Anne Archibald
2008/5/7 Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Anne Archibald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah. Good point. I did find a bug - x[:,0] doesn't do what you'd expect. Best not release without either backing out my change. I'm still trying to track down what's up.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Status Report for NumPy 1.1.0

2008-05-07 Thread Anne Archibald
2008/5/7 Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Heh, I just added some tests to 1.2 before closing ticket #707. They should probably be merged with yours. Seems a shame: Ran 1000 tests in 5.329s Such a nice round number! Anne ___ Numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Status Report for NumPy 1.1.0

2008-05-07 Thread Charles R Harris
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Anne Archibald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/5/7 Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Anne Archibald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah. Good point. I did find a bug - x[:,0] doesn't do what you'd expect. Best not release

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Status Report for NumPy 1.1.0

2008-05-07 Thread Charles R Harris
Hi Jarrod, On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 2:40 AM, Jarrod Millman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, The trunk is in pretty good shape and it is about time that I put out an official release. So tomorrow (in a little over twelve hours) I am going to create a 1.1.x branch and the trunk will be

[Numpy-discussion] Status Report for NumPy 1.1.0

2008-05-06 Thread Jarrod Millman
Hey, The trunk is in pretty good shape and it is about time that I put out an official release. So tomorrow (in a little over twelve hours) I am going to create a 1.1.x branch and the trunk will be officially open for 1.2 development. If there are no major issues that show up at the last

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Status Report for NumPy 1.1.0

2008-05-06 Thread Alan G Isaac
On Tue, 6 May 2008, Jarrod Millman apparently wrote: open tickets that I would like everyone to take a brief look at: http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/numpy/ticket/760 My understanding is that my patch, which would give a deprecation warning, was rejected in favor of the patch specified at

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Status Report for NumPy 1.1.0

2008-05-06 Thread Anne Archibald
2008/5/6 Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Alan G Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 6 May 2008, Jarrod Millman apparently wrote: open tickets that I would like everyone to take a brief look at: http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/numpy/ticket/760

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Status Report for NumPy 1.1.0

2008-05-06 Thread Bruce Southey
Hi, I think Ticket 605 (Incorrect behaviour of numpy.histogram) can be closed. With regards to Ticket 706 (scalar indexing of matrices - deprecation warning) I think it should not be a blocker now but should apply the next version. There were many different issues (and threads) raised in the