On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Derek Homeier < derek@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
On 6 May 2011, at 07:53, Ralf Gommers wrote:
Looks okay, and I agree that it's better to fix it now. The timing is a bit unfortunate though, just after RC2. I'll have closer look tomorrow and if it can go in, probably tag RC3.
If in the meantime a few more people could test this, that would be helpful.
Ralf
I agree, wish I had time to push this before rc2. I could add the explanatory comments mentioned above and switch to use the atleast_[12]d() solution, test that and push it in a couple of minutes, or should I better leave it as is now for testing?
Quick follow-up: I just applied the above changes, added some tests to cover Ben's test cases and tested this with 1.6.0rc2 on OS X 10.5 i386+ppc + 10.6 x86_64 (Python2.7+3.2). So I'd be ready to push it to my repo and do my (first) pull request...
Go ahead, I'll have a look at it tonight. Thanks for testing on several Pythons, that definitely helps.
Done, the request only appears on my repo https://github.com/dhomeier/numpy/
is that correct? If someone could test it on Linux and Windows as well...
Committed, thanks for all the work. The pull request was in the wrong place, that's a minor flaw in the github UI. After you press "Pull Request" you need to read the small print to see where it's going. Cheers, Ralf