Skip to content

HTTPS clone URL

Subversion checkout URL

You can clone with
or
.
Download ZIP

Loading…

TODO list for the 1.7.0 release #396

Closed
certik opened this Issue · 22 comments

7 participants

@certik
Owner

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

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

@certik
Owner

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

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

@certik
Owner

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

@njsmith
Owner

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

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

@njsmith
Owner

#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
Owner

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

@certik
Owner

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

@cgohlke

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

@certik
Owner

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

@rgommers
Owner

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

@cgohlke

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

@njsmith
Owner

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

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

@GaelVaroquaux

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
Owner

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

@GaelVaroquaux

@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
Owner
@certik
Owner

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

@sandrotosi

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

@certik
Owner

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
Owner

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
@pv pv referenced this issue from a commit
Commit has since been removed from the repository and is no longer available.
@pv pv referenced this issue from a commit
Commit has since been removed from the repository and is no longer available.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.