I have created a 0.7.1 branch in the main repository (this will work just like it did last time with 0.7.0). Brian has requested that I not include Tomo's quantum stuff, which was merged a little too soon.
Assuming tests pass and everything, I will create a release candidate very soon. Aaron Meurer 2011/7/21 Ondřej Čertík <[email protected]>: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Ronan Lamy <[email protected]> wrote: >> Le mardi 19 juillet 2011 à 20:49 -0600, Aaron Meurer a écrit : >>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Mateusz Paprocki <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > On 19 July 2011 20:31, Aaron Meurer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Aaron Meurer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > Well, right now, we need to close the blocking issues, which are not >>> >> > many (see >>> >> > http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/list?can=2&q=Milestone%3DRelease0.7.1+&colspec=ID+Type+Status+Priority+Milestone+Owner+Summary+Stars&cells=tiles). >>> >> > The first two I just need someone to review my branch. The third is >>> >> > something that would be nice to have, but we could live without if no >>> >> > one gets to it. >>> >> >>> >> After I sent this, I just marked two more issues as milestone. So to >>> >> be clear, the QT console one is the one that could potentially be >>> >> postponed if no one does work on it. >>> > >>> > It would be also nice to merge Lambda printer fix. >>> > >>> >>> I just merged it >> >> That's the Λ(x, 2⋅x) nonsense, right? I would have thought that pushing >> in controversial changes just before a release wasn't a good idea. But >> OK, I guess, let's clear out the review queue! > > I am sure that (with enough will) there is a way to allow multiple > ways of printing for cases > where people have different preferences how to print things (like Lambda). > > As for this particular thing, I don't think it's nonsense. > > However, I respect that you have a different opinion Ronan, and I > understand your resentment that something got in, that you don't agree > with. > Given the nature of the patch (that it can be improved upon, allowing > different printing styles, see above) and given the fact, that > somebody will be unhappy either way (if this patch does or does not go > in), I think that it is more important to reduce the number of the > open patches in our queue, and so I 100% support Aaron's decision. > > SymPy is an opensource project, and I do want a lot of people to be > involved with the development. The price for that however is, that > sometimes, not everybody can be always 100% happy, including myself > --- there are patches, that I am +0, or sometimes even a little > negative about, but if I can see good will, it is important to move > on, and let the momentum rolling, and unless something really > fundamentally breaks sympy, it can always be fixed quite easily. So > one has to be really careful about patches into sympy core, but for > printing patches, or adding new features, it's more important to get > it out of the way and improve upon it. > > Ronan, if you want to talk about this more, as I offered you in > private emails, feel free to discuss it on the list, or privately with > me (or others). We can also talk over the phone, or any other > communication medium, that works for you. Feel free to ping me > anytime. > > Ondrej > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
