TODO list for the 1.7.0 release #396

Closed
certik opened this Issue Aug 31, 2012 · 22 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
7 participants
@certik
Contributor

certik commented Aug 31, 2012

This issue is to track what needs to be done before the 1.7.0 release. I will just be updating the text here.

Issues to work on

Issues to fix:

http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/2108
#378, #392 (see Nathaniel's comment below)
#394
#424
#426
#438
#294
#291
#464

Also we need to fix all Debian build issues:
#406, #407, #408, #409, #410, #411, #412, #413, #414, #415

Access to SPARC 64 needed for:

http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/2076

Fixed Issues that need to be merged

Work is done here, it just needs to get reviewed & merged, or more discussion needed.

Issues that need clarification:

http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/2150
http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/2101

Issues + PRs that need merging:
#2696 (this is a PR against maintenance-1.7.x)

Fixed

These are fixed, but not yet back-ported to the 1.7.x branch.
#459
#2707

Backported

All these PRs are fixed in master and back-ported to the 1.7.x branch (left here for reference).

http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/2185 (PR: #395)
http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/2066 (PR: #397)
http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/2189 (PR: #397)
http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/2187 (PR: #401)
http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/1588 (PR: #405)
#416 (PR: #417)
#376
#404
#390

eebd7b2
#432
#429
#431
#430
#399
#420
#451
#440 (this adds a deprecation, so I guess it also needs a short mention added to the release notes)
#449

The above 4 issues are backported by #472.

@cgohlke

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cgohlke

cgohlke Aug 31, 2012

Contributor

How about support for Python 3.3 (to be released within a month) and PR #376?

Contributor

cgohlke commented Aug 31, 2012

How about support for Python 3.3 (to be released within a month) and PR #376?

@certik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@certik

certik Aug 31, 2012

Contributor

I've added your PR in. Can you post issues that are not working in Python 3.3? I thought that everything is fixed there.

Contributor

certik commented Aug 31, 2012

I've added your PR in. Can you post issues that are not working in Python 3.3? I thought that everything is fixed there.

@cgohlke

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cgohlke

cgohlke Aug 31, 2012

Contributor

I don't think your patches for Python 3.3 were backported/applied to the maintenance/1.7.x branch. Am I wrong?

Contributor

cgohlke commented Aug 31, 2012

I don't think your patches for Python 3.3 were backported/applied to the maintenance/1.7.x branch. Am I wrong?

@certik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@certik

certik Aug 31, 2012

Contributor

I see. You are right. I've created the issue #399 and added it into my issues above.

Contributor

certik commented Aug 31, 2012

I see. You are right. I've created the issue #399 and added it into my issues above.

@njsmith

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@njsmith

njsmith Aug 31, 2012

Member

PR #390 should be back-ported to maintenance/1.7.x

eebd7b2 should also be back-ported to fix separate compilation.

Member

njsmith commented Aug 31, 2012

PR #390 should be back-ported to maintenance/1.7.x

eebd7b2 should also be back-ported to fix separate compilation.

@njsmith

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@njsmith

njsmith Aug 31, 2012

Member

#378, #392 both represent the same regression, and as a regression they're release-critical. Worst case we can revert the offending commit (2c04244), since it's better to leave an old bug unfixed than to introduce a new one. But it should be pretty easy to fix; #392 practically has a patch already.

Member

njsmith commented Aug 31, 2012

#378, #392 both represent the same regression, and as a regression they're release-critical. Worst case we can revert the offending commit (2c04244), since it's better to leave an old bug unfixed than to introduce a new one. But it should be pretty easy to fix; #392 practically has a patch already.

@njsmith

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@njsmith

njsmith Aug 31, 2012

Member

#387 is also a regression, and probably easy to fix.

Member

njsmith commented Aug 31, 2012

#387 is also a regression, and probably easy to fix.

@certik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@certik

certik Sep 1, 2012

Contributor

@njsmith, thanks for the issues. I've added it to the description.

Contributor

certik commented Sep 1, 2012

@njsmith, thanks for the issues. I've added it to the description.

@cgohlke

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cgohlke

cgohlke Sep 1, 2012

Contributor

Another task for Python 3.3: regenerate numpy/random/mtrand/mtrand.c with Cython 0.17.

Contributor

cgohlke commented Sep 1, 2012

Another task for Python 3.3: regenerate numpy/random/mtrand/mtrand.c with Cython 0.17.

@certik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@certik

certik Sep 2, 2012

Contributor

@cgohlke, I've created #416 for this.

Contributor

certik commented Sep 2, 2012

@cgohlke, I've created #416 for this.

@rgommers

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rgommers

rgommers Sep 18, 2012

Member

Can we backport #433 (Intel compiler flags) too?

Member

rgommers commented Sep 18, 2012

Can we backport #433 (Intel compiler flags) too?

@cgohlke

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cgohlke

cgohlke Sep 20, 2012

Contributor

Can #445 be made release critical? It breaks several third party packages as reported on the mailing list.

Contributor

cgohlke commented Sep 20, 2012

Can #445 be made release critical? It breaks several third party packages as reported on the mailing list.

@njsmith

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@njsmith

njsmith Sep 20, 2012

Member

I think there are several untracked bugs described in this message (maybe just need notes in the release notes, but that's still a bug):
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.numeric.general/51429/focus=51447

Re: #445: for 1.7 purposes you could either merge it (or something like it), or you could revert 5a471b5 and the followup commit ("Retain backward compatibility. Enforce C order"). The first commit is basically just a code cleanup along with some tiny speed increase, so absolutely not release-critical, and the second commit (and #445) are then fixing release-critical bugs introduced by the first commit. So as release manager I guess you get to make the call as to which approach to getting the release out will work better for you :-).

Member

njsmith commented Sep 20, 2012

I think there are several untracked bugs described in this message (maybe just need notes in the release notes, but that's still a bug):
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.numeric.general/51429/focus=51447

Re: #445: for 1.7 purposes you could either merge it (or something like it), or you could revert 5a471b5 and the followup commit ("Retain backward compatibility. Enforce C order"). The first commit is basically just a code cleanup along with some tiny speed increase, so absolutely not release-critical, and the second commit (and #445) are then fixing release-critical bugs introduced by the first commit. So as release manager I guess you get to make the call as to which approach to getting the release out will work better for you :-).

@GaelVaroquaux

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GaelVaroquaux

GaelVaroquaux Sep 30, 2012

Contributor

Hi @certik: I would use the milestones mechanism for keeping such a list up to date. We have found it fairly effective.

Contributor

GaelVaroquaux commented Sep 30, 2012

Hi @certik: I would use the milestones mechanism for keeping such a list up to date. We have found it fairly effective.

@GaelVaroquaux

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GaelVaroquaux

GaelVaroquaux Sep 30, 2012

Contributor

I've added issues concerning regressing and backward incompatibilities:
#469 and #470
I can submit pull requests for them if my proposed solution is acceptable

In addition, I have added a couple of issues that I think should be fixed before the release:
#465 and #471

Contributor

GaelVaroquaux commented Sep 30, 2012

I've added issues concerning regressing and backward incompatibilities:
#469 and #470
I can submit pull requests for them if my proposed solution is acceptable

In addition, I have added a couple of issues that I think should be fixed before the release:
#465 and #471

@njsmith

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@njsmith

njsmith Sep 30, 2012

Member

#471 is basically a feature request, certainly not a regression... so shouldn't block the release IMO.

Member

njsmith commented Sep 30, 2012

#471 is basically a feature request, certainly not a regression... so shouldn't block the release IMO.

@GaelVaroquaux

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GaelVaroquaux

GaelVaroquaux Sep 30, 2012

Contributor

@njsmith : agreed that it shouldn't block the release, as it isn't a regression. However it is more of a bug than a feature request IMHO :)

Contributor

GaelVaroquaux commented Sep 30, 2012

@njsmith : agreed that it shouldn't block the release, as it isn't a regression. However it is more of a bug than a feature request IMHO :)

@teoliphant

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@teoliphant

teoliphant Sep 30, 2012

Member

On Sep 30, 2012, at 1:19 PM, njsmith wrote:

#471 is basically a feature request, certainly not a regression... so shouldn't block the release IMO.

+1


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

Member

teoliphant commented Sep 30, 2012

On Sep 30, 2012, at 1:19 PM, njsmith wrote:

#471 is basically a feature request, certainly not a regression... so shouldn't block the release IMO.

+1


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@certik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@certik

certik Sep 30, 2012

Contributor

@GaelVaroquaux, thanks for the tip with milestones, I was not aware of them! I am going to make use of it now.

Contributor

certik commented Sep 30, 2012

@GaelVaroquaux, thanks for the tip with milestones, I was not aware of them! I am going to make use of it now.

@sandrotosi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sandrotosi

sandrotosi Oct 22, 2012

Contributor

hi @certik would you consider merging #646 into master? a fellow debian developer verified it fixes the crash against the current master - thanks

Contributor

sandrotosi commented Oct 22, 2012

hi @certik would you consider merging #646 into master? a fellow debian developer verified it fixes the crash against the current master - thanks

@certik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@certik

certik Dec 16, 2012

Contributor

I went through all the comments here and everything has been merged or fixed by now. We now use the milestones to keep track of issues that need fixing before the release. I am now going over the issues in the description to make sure that all is fixed or tracked.

Contributor

certik commented Dec 16, 2012

I went through all the comments here and everything has been merged or fixed by now. We now use the milestones to keep track of issues that need fixing before the release. I am now going over the issues in the description to make sure that all is fixed or tracked.

@certik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@certik

certik Dec 16, 2012

Contributor

I went over the issues in the description and it looks like that they are all fixed & backported, or open and milestone added. So I am closing this issue.

Contributor

certik commented Dec 16, 2012

I went over the issues in the description and it looks like that they are all fixed & backported, or open and milestone added. So I am closing this issue.

@certik certik closed this Dec 16, 2012

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment