Preparing a scikit-learn 0.18.2 bugfix release
Hi all, I think we should release 0.18.2 to get some important fixes and make it easy to release Python 3.6 wheel package for all the operating systems using the automated procedure. I identified a couple of PR to backport to 0.18.X to prepare the 0.18.2 release. Are there any other important recently fixed bugfs people would like to see backported in this release? https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/milestone/23?closed=1 Best, -- Olivier http://twitter.com/ogrisel - http://github.com/ogrisel
In terms of the bug fixes listed in the change-log, most seem non-urgent. I would consider pulling across #7954, #8006, #8087, #7872, #7983. But I also wonder whether we'd be better off sprinting towards a small 0.19 release. On 9 January 2017 at 20:48, Olivier Grisel <olivier.grisel@ensta.org> wrote:
Hi all,
I think we should release 0.18.2 to get some important fixes and make it easy to release Python 3.6 wheel package for all the operating systems using the automated procedure.
I identified a couple of PR to backport to 0.18.X to prepare the 0.18.2 release. Are there any other important recently fixed bugfs people would like to see backported in this release?
https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/milestone/23?closed=1
Best,
-- Olivier http://twitter.com/ogrisel - http://github.com/ogrisel _______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
In retrospect, making a small 0.19 release is probably a good idea. I would like to get https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/8002 in before cutting the 0.19.X branch. -- Olivier Grisel
I think it would be nice to have 0.19 by April. We'd have 3 more months and we can frame some roadmap towards it? On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Olivier Grisel <olivier.grisel@ensta.org> wrote:
In retrospect, making a small 0.19 release is probably a good idea.
I would like to get https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/8002 in before cutting the 0.19.X branch.
-- Olivier Grisel _______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
-- Raghav RV https://github.com/raghavrv
(So we can get back to the one release per 4 month cycle?) On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Raghav R V <ragvrv@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it would be nice to have 0.19 by April. We'd have 3 more months and we can frame some roadmap towards it?
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Olivier Grisel <olivier.grisel@ensta.org> wrote:
In retrospect, making a small 0.19 release is probably a good idea.
I would like to get https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/8002 in before cutting the 0.19.X branch.
-- Olivier Grisel _______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
-- Raghav RV https://github.com/raghavrv
-- Raghav RV https://github.com/raghavrv
I would rather like to get it out before April ideally and instead of setting up a roadmap I would rather just identify bugs that are blockers and fix only those and don't wait for any feature before cutting 0.19.X. -- Olivier
On 01/09/2017 10:15 AM, Gael Varoquaux wrote:
instead of setting up a roadmap I would rather just identify bugs that are blockers and fix only those and don't wait for any feature before cutting 0.19.X.
I agree with the sentiment, but this would mess with our deprecation cycle. If we release now, and then release again soonish, that means people have less calendar time to react to deprecations. We could either accept this or change all deprecations and bump the removal by a version?
When the two versions deprecation policy was instituted, releases were much more frequent... Is that enough of an excuse? On 12 January 2017 at 03:43, Andreas Mueller <t3kcit@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/09/2017 10:15 AM, Gael Varoquaux wrote:
instead of setting up a roadmap I would rather just identify bugs that
are blockers and fix only those and don't wait for any feature before cutting 0.19.X.
I agree with the sentiment, but this would mess with our deprecation cycle. If we release now, and then release again soonish, that means people have less calendar time to react to deprecations.
We could either accept this or change all deprecations and bump the removal by a version?
_______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 08:41:51AM +1100, Joel Nothman wrote:
When the two versions deprecation policy was instituted, releases were much more frequent... Is that enough of an excuse?
I'd rather say that we can here decide that we are giving a longer grace period. I think that slow deprecations are a good things (see titus's blog post here: http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2017-pof-software-archivability.html ) G
On 12 January 2017 at 03:43, Andreas Mueller <t3kcit@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/09/2017 10:15 AM, Gael Varoquaux wrote:
instead of setting up a roadmap I would rather just identify bugs that are blockers and fix only those and don't wait for any feature before cutting 0.19.X.
I agree with the sentiment, but this would mess with our deprecation cycle. If we release now, and then release again soonish, that means people have less calendar time to react to deprecations.
We could either accept this or change all deprecations and bump the removal by a version?
_______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
_______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
-- Gael Varoquaux Researcher, INRIA Parietal NeuroSpin/CEA Saclay , Bat 145, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette France Phone: ++ 33-1-69-08-79-68 http://gael-varoquaux.info http://twitter.com/GaelVaroquaux
On 12 January 2017 at 08:51, Gael Varoquaux <gael.varoquaux@normalesup.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 08:41:51AM +1100, Joel Nothman wrote:
When the two versions deprecation policy was instituted, releases were much more frequent... Is that enough of an excuse?
I'd rather say that we can here decide that we are giving a longer grace period.
I think that slow deprecations are a good things (see titus's blog post here: http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2017-pof-software-archivability.html )
Given that 0.18 was a very slow release, and the work for removing deprecated material from 0.19 has already been done, I don't think we should revert that. I agree that we can delay the deprecation deadline for 0.20 and 0.21. In terms of release schedule, are we aiming for RC in early-mid March, assuming Andy's above prognostications are correct and he is able to review in a bigger way in a week or so? J
On 02/07/2017 09:00 PM, Joel Nothman wrote:
On 12 January 2017 at 08:51, Gael Varoquaux <gael.varoquaux@normalesup.org <mailto:gael.varoquaux@normalesup.org>> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 08:41:51AM +1100, Joel Nothman wrote: > When the two versions deprecation policy was instituted, releases were much > more frequent... Is that enough of an excuse?
I'd rather say that we can here decide that we are giving a longer grace period.
I think that slow deprecations are a good things (see titus's blog post here: http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2017-pof-software-archivability.html <http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2017-pof-software-archivability.html> )
Given that 0.18 was a very slow release, and the work for removing deprecated material from 0.19 has already been done, I don't think we should revert that. I agree that we can delay the deprecation deadline for 0.20 and 0.21.
In terms of release schedule, are we aiming for RC in early-mid March, assuming Andy's above prognostications are correct and he is able to review in a bigger way in a week or so?
Sometimes I wonder how Amazon ever gave me a job in forecasting.... Spring break is March 13-17th ;)
Hi, Are we still planning on an early April release for v0.19? Could we start marking "blockers"? On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Andreas Mueller <t3kcit@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/07/2017 09:00 PM, Joel Nothman wrote:
On 12 January 2017 at 08:51, Gael Varoquaux <gael.varoquaux@normalesup.org
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 08:41:51AM +1100, Joel Nothman wrote:
When the two versions deprecation policy was instituted, releases were much more frequent... Is that enough of an excuse?
I'd rather say that we can here decide that we are giving a longer grace period.
I think that slow deprecations are a good things (see titus's blog post here: http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2017-pof-software-archivability.html )
Given that 0.18 was a very slow release, and the work for removing deprecated material from 0.19 has already been done, I don't think we should revert that. I agree that we can delay the deprecation deadline for 0.20 and 0.21.
In terms of release schedule, are we aiming for RC in early-mid March, assuming Andy's above prognostications are correct and he is able to review in a bigger way in a week or so?
Sometimes I wonder how Amazon ever gave me a job in forecasting.... Spring break is March 13-17th ;)
_______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
-- Raghav RV https://github.com/raghavrv
I have no bandwidth to help. I will be able to help starting May 7th. On 03/24/2017 05:26 PM, Raghav R V wrote:
Hi,
Are we still planning on an early April release for v0.19? Could we start marking "blockers"?
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Andreas Mueller <t3kcit@gmail.com <mailto:t3kcit@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 02/07/2017 09:00 PM, Joel Nothman wrote:
On 12 January 2017 at 08:51, Gael Varoquaux <gael.varoquaux@normalesup.org <mailto:gael.varoquaux@normalesup.org>> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 08:41:51AM +1100, Joel Nothman wrote: > When the two versions deprecation policy was instituted, releases were much > more frequent... Is that enough of an excuse?
I'd rather say that we can here decide that we are giving a longer grace period.
I think that slow deprecations are a good things (see titus's blog post here: http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2017-pof-software-archivability.html <http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2017-pof-software-archivability.html> )
Given that 0.18 was a very slow release, and the work for removing deprecated material from 0.19 has already been done, I don't think we should revert that. I agree that we can delay the deprecation deadline for 0.20 and 0.21.
In terms of release schedule, are we aiming for RC in early-mid March, assuming Andy's above prognostications are correct and he is able to review in a bigger way in a week or so?
Sometimes I wonder how Amazon ever gave me a job in forecasting.... Spring break is March 13-17th ;)
_______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org <mailto:scikit-learn@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn>
-- Raghav RV https://github.com/raghavrv
_______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
Yes, it's a pity that this has had to be delayed due to dev unavailability, but I don't think we can risk a release without some more quality assurance. My teaching atm, among other bits of life, is also impacting on any free time, but even if I find more time, I've already given my support to many of the PRs currently marked MRG+1 <https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=%22mrg%2B1%22&type=Issues> (have I been too profligate with my approvals?!). Is it worth waiting as long as until the June sprint, but promising to close the release before end of June? Or else promising a release for end of May and using the sprint to identify priorities for future releases? I think for the sake of the contributors, we should make sure that many of the things that are mostly reviewed get merged before release. For the sake of the users, we should make sure that as many bugs are fixed as possible; apart from some wonderful work from Loïc, I feel bug review has not been receiving as much attention as it should. Perhaps Olivier's suggestion of 0.18.2 was good after all. :\ On 26 March 2017 at 06:54, Andreas Mueller <t3kcit@gmail.com> wrote:
I have no bandwidth to help. I will be able to help starting May 7th.
On 03/24/2017 05:26 PM, Raghav R V wrote:
Hi,
Are we still planning on an early April release for v0.19? Could we start marking "blockers"?
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Andreas Mueller <t3kcit@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/07/2017 09:00 PM, Joel Nothman wrote:
On 12 January 2017 at 08:51, Gael Varoquaux < gael.varoquaux@normalesup.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 08:41:51AM +1100, Joel Nothman wrote:
When the two versions deprecation policy was instituted, releases were much more frequent... Is that enough of an excuse?
I'd rather say that we can here decide that we are giving a longer grace period.
I think that slow deprecations are a good things (see titus's blog post here: http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2017-pof-software-archivability.html )
Given that 0.18 was a very slow release, and the work for removing deprecated material from 0.19 has already been done, I don't think we should revert that. I agree that we can delay the deprecation deadline for 0.20 and 0.21.
In terms of release schedule, are we aiming for RC in early-mid March, assuming Andy's above prognostications are correct and he is able to review in a bigger way in a week or so?
Sometimes I wonder how Amazon ever gave me a job in forecasting.... Spring break is March 13-17th ;)
_______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
-- Raghav RV https://github.com/raghavrv
_______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing listscikit-learn@python.orghttps://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
_______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
I would like to release in may, before the sprint. That is, if we are happy with where the codebase is at then. If someone feels like they have the time end energy to create 0.18.2, and we have enough reviewers to ensure quality, I'm not opposed. I just won't be able to be of any help. On 03/25/2017 09:32 PM, Joel Nothman wrote:
Yes, it's a pity that this has had to be delayed due to dev unavailability, but I don't think we can risk a release without some more quality assurance. My teaching atm, among other bits of life, is also impacting on any free time, but even if I find more time, I've already given my support to many of the PRs currently marked MRG+1 <https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=%22mrg%2B1%22&type=Issues> (have I been too profligate with my approvals?!).
Is it worth waiting as long as until the June sprint, but promising to close the release before end of June? Or else promising a release for end of May and using the sprint to identify priorities for future releases?
I think for the sake of the contributors, we should make sure that many of the things that are mostly reviewed get merged before release. For the sake of the users, we should make sure that as many bugs are fixed as possible; apart from some wonderful work from Loïc, I feel bug review has not been receiving as much attention as it should.
Perhaps Olivier's suggestion of 0.18.2 was good after all. :\
On 26 March 2017 at 06:54, Andreas Mueller <t3kcit@gmail.com <mailto:t3kcit@gmail.com>> wrote:
I have no bandwidth to help. I will be able to help starting May 7th.
On 03/24/2017 05:26 PM, Raghav R V wrote:
Hi,
Are we still planning on an early April release for v0.19? Could we start marking "blockers"?
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Andreas Mueller <t3kcit@gmail.com <mailto:t3kcit@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 02/07/2017 09:00 PM, Joel Nothman wrote:
On 12 January 2017 at 08:51, Gael Varoquaux <gael.varoquaux@normalesup.org <mailto:gael.varoquaux@normalesup.org>> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 08:41:51AM +1100, Joel Nothman wrote: > When the two versions deprecation policy was instituted, releases were much > more frequent... Is that enough of an excuse?
I'd rather say that we can here decide that we are giving a longer grace period.
I think that slow deprecations are a good things (see titus's blog post here: http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2017-pof-software-archivability.html <http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2017-pof-software-archivability.html> )
Given that 0.18 was a very slow release, and the work for removing deprecated material from 0.19 has already been done, I don't think we should revert that. I agree that we can delay the deprecation deadline for 0.20 and 0.21.
In terms of release schedule, are we aiming for RC in early-mid March, assuming Andy's above prognostications are correct and he is able to review in a bigger way in a week or so?
Sometimes I wonder how Amazon ever gave me a job in forecasting.... Spring break is March 13-17th ;)
_______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org <mailto:scikit-learn@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn>
-- Raghav RV https://github.com/raghavrv
_______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org <mailto:scikit-learn@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn>
_______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org <mailto:scikit-learn@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn>
_______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
On 01/09/2017 09:43 AM, Olivier Grisel wrote:
In retrospect, making a small 0.19 release is probably a good idea.
I would like to get https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/8002 in before cutting the 0.19.X branch.
Either way, I consider these two blocking for any kind of release: https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/7356 https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/6727 I have to write three grants in the next ~three weeks and start my first lecture. Don't count on me too much until mid-Feb.
participants (5)
-
Andreas Mueller -
Gael Varoquaux -
Joel Nothman -
Olivier Grisel -
Raghav R V