Mailman 3 March 2017 - scikit-image

color.lab2rgb output differs from colormine.org
by Michael O'Brien 27 Mar '17

27 Mar '17

Hi all, If I use the following array of LAB values array([[[ 48.07851346, -14.69400135, 25.2170507 ], [ 63.21232753, -3.65444198, 6.67734193], [ 45.80027308, -2.47952304, 11.5073341 ], [ 46.84900559, -10.37025167, 19.92527996], [ 44.92476952, 19.36861848, 2.97238555], [ 35.50132805, 5.89086564, 1.95259827]]]) and use the following code to pass the array to lab2rgb rgbcolours =color.lab2rgb(ClusterColours.values[np.newaxis]) I get the array array([[[ 0.40929448, 0.47071505, 0.27701891], [ 0.59383913, 0.60611158, 0.55329837], [ 0.4393785 , 0.4276561 , 0.34999225], [ 0.4159481 , 0.4516056 , 0.3026519 ], [ 0.54449997, 0.36963636, 0.4001209 ], [ 0.36970012, 0.3145826 , 0.315974 ]]]) but on colormine.org if I enter the 1st of the LAB values I get 105,119,70 for RGB and not colours so close to black Where am I going wrong?

1 0

Gearing up for 0.13
by Juan Nunez-Iglesias 25 Mar '17

25 Mar '17

Hi everyone, We’ve had these two 32-bit blockers holding up 0.13 for a couple of months now. Importantly, both of these bugs: - existed in 0.12 - are only testing bugs, not actual bugs (as far as I can tell) Therefore, I’ve proposed to ship 0.13.0 before fixing them. When we do fix them, we can back-port to 0.13.1/2/3. Stéfan was on board with this plan. If there are no objections, I’ll get the ball rolling shortly on the release. But, I wanted to give people a chance to comment on the decision before starting. =) Juan.

3 2

Re: [scikit-image] Gearing up for 0.13
by Stefan van der Walt 25 Mar '17

25 Mar '17

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017, at 08:57, Nelle Varoquaux wrote: > > On 25 March 2017 at 08:37, Juan Nunez-Iglesias > <jni.soma(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> We’ve had these two 32-bit blockers[1] holding up 0.13 for a couple >> of months now. Importantly, both of these bugs: >> - existed in 0.12 >> - are only testing bugs, not actual bugs (as far as I can tell) >> >> Therefore, I’ve proposed to ship 0.13.0 before fixing them. When we >> do fix them, we can back-port to 0.13.1/2/3. Stéfan was on board with >> this plan. If there are no objections, I’ll get the ball rolling >> shortly on the release. But, I wanted to give people a chance to >> comment on the decision before starting. =) > > Stéfan wanted my pytest PR in before the release. Is that still > the case? If we can make that happen in the next day or two, I think we should. But it should not block the release. Stéfan Links: 1. https://github.com/scikit-image/scikit-image/milestone/6

1 0

Re: [scikit-image] Gearing up for 0.13
by Egor Panfilov 25 Mar '17

25 Mar '17

Hi all, +1 from me to go on with the release. Those bugs are the long-lasting ones, and don't seem to be easily fixed. As for pytest migration, I think we can't reschedule it for 0.13.1 or something. Most of the work is done there, we just need to re-iterate with the recent additions. Regards, Egor 2017-03-25 19:55 GMT+03:00 Steven Silvester <steven.silvester(a)gmail.com>: > To be clear, I meant the 32 bit fixes. Happy to include Nelle's PR. > > > Sent from phone. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Steven Silvester <steven.silvester(a)gmail.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, March 25, 2017 11:53:26 AM > *To:* scikit-image(a)python.org; Johannes Schönberger > > *Subject:* Re: [scikit-image] Gearing up for 0.13 > > +1 for a release without the testing fixes. > > > Sent from phone. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* scikit-image <scikit-image-bounces+steven.silvester= > gmail.com(a)python.org> on behalf of Johannes Schönberger <jsch(a)demuc.de> > *Sent:* Saturday, March 25, 2017 11:47:22 AM > *To:* scikit-image(a)python.org > *Subject:* Re: [scikit-image] Gearing up for 0.13 > > Trying to ship 0.13 sounds good to me! And those 32-bit bugs can be > back-ported. > > Cheers, > Johannes > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017, at 05:19 PM, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote: > > That’s fine. My general approach is to merge things as they’re ready. > That’s the point of continuous integration. =) Would you like to have a > stab at the rebase? If you ping me here I’ll review ASAP. > > CC list: sorry, I forgot to reply-all earlier. Full (tiny) thread below. > > On 25 Mar 2017, 12:09 PM -0400, Nelle Varoquaux <nelle.varoquaux(a)gmail.com>, > wrote: > > His point was that backporting would be easier if it was merged before. > > On 25 March 2017 at 09:03, Juan Nunez-Iglesias <jni.soma(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Oh! I thought the consensus was to have it *after* the release! > #releasemanagerfail =P But it’s still on the 0.14 milestone. And looking at > the comments it’s not clear that he wanted that? Anyway, I’m personally > happy to merge if a rebase fixes the failing travis build. > > On 25 Mar 2017, 11:57 AM -0400, Nelle Varoquaux <nelle.varoquaux(a)gmail.com>, > wrote: > > > > On 25 March 2017 at 08:37, Juan Nunez-Iglesias <jni.soma(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > We’ve had these two 32-bit blockers > <https://github.com/scikit-image/scikit-image/milestone/6> holding up > 0.13 for a couple of months now. Importantly, both of these bugs: > - existed in 0.12 > - are only testing bugs, not actual bugs (as far as I can tell) > > Therefore, I’ve proposed to ship 0.13.0 before fixing them. When we do fix > them, we can back-port to 0.13.1/2/3. Stéfan was on board with this plan. > If there are no objections, I’ll get the ball rolling shortly on the > release. But, I wanted to give people a chance to comment on the decision > before starting. =) > > > Stéfan wanted my pytest PR in before the release. Is that still the case? > > Cheers, > N > > > > Juan. > > _______________________________________________ > scikit-image mailing list > scikit-image(a)python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image > > *_______________________________________________* > scikit-image mailing list > scikit-image(a)python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image > > > > _______________________________________________ > scikit-image mailing list > scikit-image(a)python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image > >

1 0

Re: [scikit-image] Gearing up for 0.13
by Steven Silvester 25 Mar '17

25 Mar '17

To be clear, I meant the 32 bit fixes. Happy to include Nelle's PR. Sent from phone. ________________________________ From: Steven Silvester <steven.silvester(a)gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 11:53:26 AM To: scikit-image(a)python.org; Johannes Schönberger Subject: Re: [scikit-image] Gearing up for 0.13 +1 for a release without the testing fixes. Sent from phone. ________________________________ From: scikit-image <scikit-image-bounces+steven.silvester=gmail.com(a)python.org> on behalf of Johannes Schönberger <jsch(a)demuc.de> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 11:47:22 AM To: scikit-image(a)python.org Subject: Re: [scikit-image] Gearing up for 0.13 Trying to ship 0.13 sounds good to me! And those 32-bit bugs can be back-ported. Cheers, Johannes On Sat, Mar 25, 2017, at 05:19 PM, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote: That’s fine. My general approach is to merge things as they’re ready. That’s the point of continuous integration. =) Would you like to have a stab at the rebase? If you ping me here I’ll review ASAP. CC list: sorry, I forgot to reply-all earlier. Full (tiny) thread below. On 25 Mar 2017, 12:09 PM -0400, Nelle Varoquaux <nelle.varoquaux(a)gmail.com>, wrote: His point was that backporting would be easier if it was merged before. On 25 March 2017 at 09:03, Juan Nunez-Iglesias <jni.soma(a)gmail.com<mailto:jni.soma@gmail.com>> wrote: Oh! I thought the consensus was to have it *after* the release! #releasemanagerfail =P But it’s still on the 0.14 milestone. And looking at the comments it’s not clear that he wanted that? Anyway, I’m personally happy to merge if a rebase fixes the failing travis build. On 25 Mar 2017, 11:57 AM -0400, Nelle Varoquaux <nelle.varoquaux(a)gmail.com<mailto:nelle.varoquaux@gmail.com>>, wrote: On 25 March 2017 at 08:37, Juan Nunez-Iglesias <jni.soma(a)gmail.com<mailto:jni.soma@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi everyone, We’ve had these two 32-bit blockers<https://github.com/scikit-image/scikit-image/milestone/6> holding up 0.13 for a couple of months now. Importantly, both of these bugs: - existed in 0.12 - are only testing bugs, not actual bugs (as far as I can tell) Therefore, I’ve proposed to ship 0.13.0 before fixing them. When we do fix them, we can back-port to 0.13.1/2/3. Stéfan was on board with this plan. If there are no objections, I’ll get the ball rolling shortly on the release. But, I wanted to give people a chance to comment on the decision before starting. =) Stéfan wanted my pytest PR in before the release. Is that still the case? Cheers, N Juan. _______________________________________________ scikit-image mailing list scikit-image(a)python.org<mailto:scikit-image@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image _______________________________________________ scikit-image mailing list scikit-image(a)python.org<mailto:scikit-image@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image

1 0

Re: [scikit-image] Gearing up for 0.13
by Steven Silvester 25 Mar '17

25 Mar '17

+1 for a release without the testing fixes. Sent from phone. ________________________________ From: scikit-image <scikit-image-bounces+steven.silvester=gmail.com(a)python.org> on behalf of Johannes Schönberger <jsch(a)demuc.de> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 11:47:22 AM To: scikit-image(a)python.org Subject: Re: [scikit-image] Gearing up for 0.13 Trying to ship 0.13 sounds good to me! And those 32-bit bugs can be back-ported. Cheers, Johannes On Sat, Mar 25, 2017, at 05:19 PM, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote: That’s fine. My general approach is to merge things as they’re ready. That’s the point of continuous integration. =) Would you like to have a stab at the rebase? If you ping me here I’ll review ASAP. CC list: sorry, I forgot to reply-all earlier. Full (tiny) thread below. On 25 Mar 2017, 12:09 PM -0400, Nelle Varoquaux <nelle.varoquaux(a)gmail.com>, wrote: His point was that backporting would be easier if it was merged before. On 25 March 2017 at 09:03, Juan Nunez-Iglesias <jni.soma(a)gmail.com<mailto:jni.soma@gmail.com>> wrote: Oh! I thought the consensus was to have it *after* the release! #releasemanagerfail =P But it’s still on the 0.14 milestone. And looking at the comments it’s not clear that he wanted that? Anyway, I’m personally happy to merge if a rebase fixes the failing travis build. On 25 Mar 2017, 11:57 AM -0400, Nelle Varoquaux <nelle.varoquaux(a)gmail.com<mailto:nelle.varoquaux@gmail.com>>, wrote: On 25 March 2017 at 08:37, Juan Nunez-Iglesias <jni.soma(a)gmail.com<mailto:jni.soma@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi everyone, We’ve had these two 32-bit blockers<https://github.com/scikit-image/scikit-image/milestone/6> holding up 0.13 for a couple of months now. Importantly, both of these bugs: - existed in 0.12 - are only testing bugs, not actual bugs (as far as I can tell) Therefore, I’ve proposed to ship 0.13.0 before fixing them. When we do fix them, we can back-port to 0.13.1/2/3. Stéfan was on board with this plan. If there are no objections, I’ll get the ball rolling shortly on the release. But, I wanted to give people a chance to comment on the decision before starting. =) Stéfan wanted my pytest PR in before the release. Is that still the case? Cheers, N Juan. _______________________________________________ scikit-image mailing list scikit-image(a)python.org<mailto:scikit-image@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image _______________________________________________ scikit-image mailing list scikit-image(a)python.org<mailto:scikit-image@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image

1 0

Re: [scikit-image] Gearing up for 0.13
by Juan Nunez-Iglesias 25 Mar '17

25 Mar '17

That’s fine. My general approach is to merge things as they’re ready. That’s the point of continuous integration. =) Would you like to have a stab at the rebase? If you ping me here I’ll review ASAP. CC list: sorry, I forgot to reply-all earlier. Full (tiny) thread below. On 25 Mar 2017, 12:09 PM -0400, Nelle Varoquaux <nelle.varoquaux(a)gmail.com>, wrote: > His point was that backporting would be easier if it was merged before. > > > On 25 March 2017 at 09:03, Juan Nunez-Iglesias <jni.soma(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Oh! I thought the consensus was to have it *after* the release! #releasemanagerfail =P But it’s still on the 0.14 milestone. And looking at the comments it’s not clear that he wanted that? Anyway, I’m personally happy to merge if a rebase fixes the failing travis build. > > > > > > On 25 Mar 2017, 11:57 AM -0400, Nelle Varoquaux <nelle.varoquaux(a)gmail.com>, wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 25 March 2017 at 08:37, Juan Nunez-Iglesias <jni.soma(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > We’ve had these two 32-bit blockers holding up 0.13 for a couple of months now. Importantly, both of these bugs: > > > > > > - existed in 0.12 > > > > > > - are only testing bugs, not actual bugs (as far as I can tell) > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, I’ve proposed to ship 0.13.0 before fixing them. When we do fix them, we can back-port to 0.13.1/2/3. Stéfan was on board with this plan. If there are no objections, I’ll get the ball rolling shortly on the release. But, I wanted to give people a chance to comment on the decision before starting. =) > > > > > > > > > > Stéfan wanted my pytest PR in before the release. Is that still the case? > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > N > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Juan. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > scikit-image mailing list > > > > > > scikit-image(a)python.org > > > > > > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

Re: [scikit-image] Request to try a GitHub integration for automatic code style review | "PEP8Speaks" (Egor Panfilov)
by Himanshu Mishra 21 Mar '17

21 Mar '17

> > > This also came across my radar today: > > https://landscape.io/ Hey Stefan, I like landscape.io very much. landscape.io is *very* useful in detecting potential errors and code smells. But it nags a lot like other bots. So, disabling comments is ultimately the solution. Tried on StingraySoftware. Hi Himanshu, > > The bot looks really nice! What would be the pre-requisites from our side > to deploy it? > > @scikit-image/core, > > I'd vote to give it a try. What do you think about 3-4 months probation > period for the bot? During the period we could evaluate how well it > supplements our current practices, and how the contributors are responding. > > Regards, > Egor > > There are no prerequisites as of now. The integration can be simply enabled from https://github.com/integration/pep8-speaks A .pep8speaks.yml file can help in several configurations : https://github.com/orkohunter/pep8speaks#configuration but is not required. (This works quite similar to Travis) Plus the integration is written as open source in Python and I would really love to change around, as the community would expect. Thank you. -- Himanshu Mishra Third Year Undergraduate Mathematics and Computing IIT Kharagpur https://orkohunter.net

1 0

Re: [scikit-image] Request to try a GitHub integration for automatic code style review | "PEP8Speaks"
by Steven Silvester 21 Mar '17

21 Mar '17

I second Egor’s motion. Regards, Steve > On Mar 21, 2017, at 2:46 AM, Egor Panfilov <egor.v.panfilov(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Himanshu, > > The bot looks really nice! What would be the pre-requisites from our side to deploy it? > > @scikit-image/core, > > I'd vote to give it a try. What do you think about 3-4 months probation period for the bot? During the period we could evaluate how well it supplements our current practices, and how the contributors are responding. > > Regards, > Egor > > 2017-03-21 2:08 GMT+03:00 Stefan van der Walt <stefanv(a)berkeley.edu <mailto:stefanv@berkeley.edu>>: > This also came across my radar today: > > https://landscape.io/ <https://landscape.io/> > > Stéfan > > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017, at 14:33, Stefan van der Walt wrote: >> Hi Himanshu >> >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017, at 12:24, Himanshu Mishra wrote: >>> I am not sure if this is the right place to talk about it, but a lot of times I have witnessed reviewers leave a little comment after reviewing the whole PR, and it is more or less about "some style issues. :)". It should be better for the reviewer to focus more on the implementation of the PR and leave the style issues to a bot. Thinking this in mind, a while ago, I created a Github Integration called PEP8 Speaks which automatically reviews the code style and comments on the Pull Request. It is written in Python and is open source. Github - https://github.com/orkohunter/pep8speaks <https://github.com/orkohunter/pep8speaks> >> >> I've been wanting to put something like this in place for a while; so, if you're willing to help out, we'd be grateful. >> >> We've also looked at Code Climate before; do you know how your proposed solution compares? >> >> Thanks! >> Stéfan >> > > > _______________________________________________ > scikit-image mailing list > scikit-image(a)python.org <mailto:scikit-image@python.org> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image> > > > _______________________________________________ > scikit-image mailing list > scikit-image(a)python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image

2 1

Re: [scikit-image] Request to try a GitHub integration for automatic code style review | "PEP8Speaks"
by Egor Panfilov 21 Mar '17

21 Mar '17

Hi Himanshu, The bot looks really nice! What would be the pre-requisites from our side to deploy it? @scikit-image/core, I'd vote to give it a try. What do you think about 3-4 months probation period for the bot? During the period we could evaluate how well it supplements our current practices, and how the contributors are responding. Regards, Egor 2017-03-21 2:08 GMT+03:00 Stefan van der Walt <stefanv(a)berkeley.edu>: > This also came across my radar today: > > https://landscape.io/ > > Stéfan > > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017, at 14:33, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > > Hi Himanshu > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017, at 12:24, Himanshu Mishra wrote: > > I am not sure if this is the right place to talk about it, but a lot of > times I have witnessed reviewers leave a little comment after reviewing the > whole PR, and it is more or less about "some style issues. :)". It should > be better for the reviewer to focus more on the implementation of the PR > and leave the style issues to a bot. Thinking this in mind, a while ago, I > created a Github Integration called PEP8 Speaks which automatically reviews > the code style and comments on the Pull Request. It is written in Python > and is open source. Github - https://github.com/orkohunter/pep8speaks > > > I've been wanting to put something like this in place for a while; so, if > you're willing to help out, we'd be grateful. > > We've also looked at Code Climate before; do you know how your proposed > solution compares? > > Thanks! > Stéfan > > > > _______________________________________________ > scikit-image mailing list > scikit-image(a)python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image > >

1 0