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
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