Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fixed not being able to set vertical/horizontal alignments in polar graphs #10792

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 23, 2018

Conversation

ghost
Copy link

@ghost ghost commented Mar 15, 2018

PR Summary

Previously polar graphs could not have their vertical/horizontal alignments set by set_rgrids(), this fix should re-enable this functionality.

Issue #10105

PR Checklist

  • Has Pytest style unit tests
  • Code is PEP 8 compliant

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Mar 16, 2018

I believe this pull request is what caused this regression.

@pbregener
Copy link

Would love to see this simple patch backported to v2.2.x as well 👍

@OD1995
Copy link

OD1995 commented Mar 27, 2018

@charlesruan @pbregener is this fix live? If so, how can I take advantage of the changes?

@pbregener
Copy link

This MR is not merged, yet, so it's not "live" in the sense that it is part of any release or even current master. I guess the 5 commits should be squashed into one with a sensible commit message and then some maintainer should review and eventually merge it.

@ImportanceOfBeingErnest
Copy link
Member

There is also this regression on polar plots: #10882
Are they related?

@jklymak jklymak added this to the v3.0 milestone Mar 27, 2018
Copy link
Member

@phobson phobson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the PR. It looks like this works as expected.

@jklymak
Copy link
Member

jklymak commented Mar 27, 2018

PRs need two reviews. This looks reasonable, but it would be nice to know what PR the regression came in from and whether this was just an oversight or a design decision.

@pbregener
Copy link

@jklymak This goes back to #9068 and therefore v2.1.0. Also see the original issue for this: #10105

@jklymak
Copy link
Member

jklymak commented Mar 27, 2018

Thanks. ping @QuLogic who is the local polar expert.

Copy link
Member

@jklymak jklymak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks fine to me, but reluctant to merge w/o @QuLogic having a look..

@dopplershift
Copy link
Contributor

If this really is a regression, it should probably be milestoned for v2.2.3

@jklymak
Copy link
Member

jklymak commented Mar 27, 2018

Its a 2.1 regression. Not sure on the policy there.

@pbregener
Copy link

It is a regression and as mentioned above, I would love to see this in v2.2.x. Should be really easy to backport, too.

Not sure about how matplotlib usually handles this, but I guess it would be nice to squash the five commits for this fairly trivial change into one @charlesruan

@dopplershift
Copy link
Contributor

@tacaswell said:

I propose the following criteria for backporting PRs to the 2.2.x branch. We always will backport

  • critical bug fixes (segfault, failure to import, things that the user can not work around)
  • fixes for regressions against 2.0 or 2.1

This would seem to fit.

@dopplershift dopplershift modified the milestones: v3.0, v2.2.3 Mar 27, 2018
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Mar 27, 2018

Commits have been squashed

@pbregener
Copy link

ping @jklymak and especially @QuLogic for an update on this PR?

@jklymak jklymak merged commit b33aabc into matplotlib:master Apr 23, 2018
lumberbot-app bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2018
@phobson
Copy link
Member

phobson commented Apr 24, 2018

@charlesruan thanks so much for this PR and your patience with the process!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants