Re: [scikit-image] Gearing up for 0.13
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@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@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@gmail.com>, wrote:
On 25 March 2017 at 08:37, Juan Nunez-Iglesias <jni.soma@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@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image
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@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@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@gmail.com>, wrote:
On 25 March 2017 at 08:37, Juan Nunez-Iglesias <jni.soma@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?
Cheers,
N
Juan.
_______________________________________________
scikit-image mailing list
scikit-image@python.org
_________________________________________________
scikit-image mailing list
scikit-image@python.org
Links: 1. https://github.com/scikit-image/scikit-image/milestone/6
participants (2)
-
Johannes Schönberger -
Juan Nunez-Iglesias