Proposed SciPy 1.3.0 Release Schedule
Hi All, It is almost 4 months after the (slightly-delayed) 1.2.0 release on December 17/ 2018, so probably time to plan the 1.3.0 release. It would be a good idea to look over the PRs with a 1.3.0 milestone, and tag anything else that should have this milestone appropriately. I'd like to propose the following schedule: April 25: branch 1.3.x April 28: rc1 May 11: rc2 (if needed) May 20: final release Thoughts? Tyler
Would it be possible to add 9990 and 10002 to 1.3.0, or is that too ambitious? On Sun., 14 Apr. 2019, 07:20 Tyler Reddy, <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
It is almost 4 months after the (slightly-delayed) 1.2.0 release on December 17/ 2018, so probably time to plan the 1.3.0 release. It would be a good idea to look over the PRs with a 1.3.0 milestone, and tag anything else that should have this milestone appropriately.
I'd like to propose the following schedule:
April 25: branch 1.3.x April 28: rc1 May 11: rc2 (if needed) May 20: final release
Thoughts? Tyler
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:27 AM Andrew Nelson <andyfaff@gmail.com> wrote:
Would it be possible to add 9990 and 10002 to 1.3.0, or is that too ambitious?
Those look like they're in good shape, should be doable. I've added them to the milestone. Tyler can always remove them again if we run out of time.
On Sun., 14 Apr. 2019, 07:20 Tyler Reddy, <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
It is almost 4 months after the (slightly-delayed) 1.2.0 release on December 17/ 2018, so probably time to plan the 1.3.0 release. It would be a good idea to look over the PRs with a 1.3.0 milestone, and tag anything else that should have this milestone appropriately.
I'd like to propose the following schedule:
April 25: branch 1.3.x April 28: rc1 May 11: rc2 (if needed) May 20: final release
Thoughts?
That works for me. There may be a few items in https://github.com/scipy/scipy/milestone/37 that we won't get to, but the only real blocker (py37 build issue) on that list is ready to merge. Cheers, Ralf
Hi Tyler, Thanks for managing the release again! This is a very important service for the SciPy community, and I'm very grateful! Do you think we could try to add #9568 and #10052 assuming everyone agrees they are good? thanks again! Mark On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 2:13 AM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:27 AM Andrew Nelson <andyfaff@gmail.com> wrote:
Would it be possible to add 9990 and 10002 to 1.3.0, or is that too ambitious?
Those look like they're in good shape, should be doable. I've added them to the milestone. Tyler can always remove them again if we run out of time.
On Sun., 14 Apr. 2019, 07:20 Tyler Reddy, <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
It is almost 4 months after the (slightly-delayed) 1.2.0 release on December 17/ 2018, so probably time to plan the 1.3.0 release. It would be a good idea to look over the PRs with a 1.3.0 milestone, and tag anything else that should have this milestone appropriately.
I'd like to propose the following schedule:
April 25: branch 1.3.x April 28: rc1 May 11: rc2 (if needed) May 20: final release
Thoughts?
That works for me. There may be a few items in https://github.com/scipy/scipy/milestone/37 that we won't get to, but the only real blocker (py37 build issue) on that list is ready to merge.
Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) *Fiat Lux*
I'd like to get #10026 in there, too. SuiteSparse seems to routinely speed up `linprog` by a factor of 2-4 (when available). On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 7:40 AM Mark Alexander Mikofski < mikofski@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Hi Tyler,
Thanks for managing the release again! This is a very important service for the SciPy community, and I'm very grateful!
Do you think we could try to add #9568 and #10052 assuming everyone agrees they are good?
thanks again! Mark
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 2:13 AM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:27 AM Andrew Nelson <andyfaff@gmail.com> wrote:
Would it be possible to add 9990 and 10002 to 1.3.0, or is that too ambitious?
Those look like they're in good shape, should be doable. I've added them to the milestone. Tyler can always remove them again if we run out of time.
On Sun., 14 Apr. 2019, 07:20 Tyler Reddy, <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
It is almost 4 months after the (slightly-delayed) 1.2.0 release on December 17/ 2018, so probably time to plan the 1.3.0 release. It would be a good idea to look over the PRs with a 1.3.0 milestone, and tag anything else that should have this milestone appropriately.
I'd like to propose the following schedule:
April 25: branch 1.3.x April 28: rc1 May 11: rc2 (if needed) May 20: final release
Thoughts?
That works for me. There may be a few items in https://github.com/scipy/scipy/milestone/37 that we won't get to, but the only real blocker (py37 build issue) on that list is ready to merge.
Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) *Fiat Lux* _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Matt Haberland Assistant Adjunct Professor in the Program in Computing Department of Mathematics 6617A Math Sciences Building, UCLA
Hi Tyler, Thanks again for taking on the release management. Is there anything that we (as contributors) can do to help? Should we be reviewing the 1.3.0 milestone PR's? What would be most helpful specifically? I read through the dev guide ( https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/index.html) and hacking guidelines (https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/hacking.html), and I looked at the 1.3.0 milestones, and it seems like reviewing PR's with the fewest comments might be the best approach. Would that help? Cheers, Mark On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 5:42 PM Matt Haberland <haberland@ucla.edu> wrote:
I'd like to get #10026 in there, too. SuiteSparse seems to routinely speed up `linprog` by a factor of 2-4 (when available).
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 7:40 AM Mark Alexander Mikofski < mikofski@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Hi Tyler,
Thanks for managing the release again! This is a very important service for the SciPy community, and I'm very grateful!
Do you think we could try to add #9568 and #10052 assuming everyone agrees they are good?
thanks again! Mark
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 2:13 AM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:27 AM Andrew Nelson <andyfaff@gmail.com> wrote:
Would it be possible to add 9990 and 10002 to 1.3.0, or is that too ambitious?
Those look like they're in good shape, should be doable. I've added them to the milestone. Tyler can always remove them again if we run out of time.
On Sun., 14 Apr. 2019, 07:20 Tyler Reddy, <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
It is almost 4 months after the (slightly-delayed) 1.2.0 release on December 17/ 2018, so probably time to plan the 1.3.0 release. It would be a good idea to look over the PRs with a 1.3.0 milestone, and tag anything else that should have this milestone appropriately.
I'd like to propose the following schedule:
April 25: branch 1.3.x April 28: rc1 May 11: rc2 (if needed) May 20: final release
Thoughts?
That works for me. There may be a few items in https://github.com/scipy/scipy/milestone/37 that we won't get to, but the only real blocker (py37 build issue) on that list is ready to merge.
Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) *Fiat Lux* _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Matt Haberland Assistant Adjunct Professor in the Program in Computing Department of Mathematics 6617A Math Sciences Building, UCLA _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) *Fiat Lux*
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 9:34 AM Mark Mikofski <mikofski@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Hi Tyler,
Thanks again for taking on the release management.
Is there anything that we (as contributors) can do to help? Should we be reviewing the 1.3.0 milestone PR's? What would be most helpful specifically?
Help with reviewing can be a very valuable contribution, not just for a particular release but in general. I think many contributors are under the impression that you need to be a maintainer to review - this definitely isn't the case, as long as you have the knowledge to understand the code in a PR you can help a lot. In particular this is the case for larger PRs that propose new features, because those are often a lot of work to review and require domain-specific knowledge. Here is an example (also tagged for 1.3.0): https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7310, adding a logarithmic FFT implementation. Two kinds of things would be helpful: - someone who understands FFTs well and can review the implementation - someone who needs the feature, and can test it and confirm that everything works as expected A couple more in the same vein: - peak declustering for scipy.signal: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9513 - RotationSpline for scipy.spatial.transform: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9831 - support for ARFF relational attributes in scipy.io: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9854 Cheers, Ralf
I read through the dev guide ( https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/index.html) and hacking guidelines (https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/hacking.html), and I looked at the 1.3.0 milestones, and it seems like reviewing PR's with the fewest comments might be the best approach. Would that help?
Cheers, Mark
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 5:42 PM Matt Haberland <haberland@ucla.edu> wrote:
I'd like to get #10026 in there, too. SuiteSparse seems to routinely speed up `linprog` by a factor of 2-4 (when available).
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 7:40 AM Mark Alexander Mikofski < mikofski@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Hi Tyler,
Thanks for managing the release again! This is a very important service for the SciPy community, and I'm very grateful!
Do you think we could try to add #9568 and #10052 assuming everyone agrees they are good?
thanks again! Mark
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 2:13 AM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:27 AM Andrew Nelson <andyfaff@gmail.com> wrote:
Would it be possible to add 9990 and 10002 to 1.3.0, or is that too ambitious?
Those look like they're in good shape, should be doable. I've added them to the milestone. Tyler can always remove them again if we run out of time.
On Sun., 14 Apr. 2019, 07:20 Tyler Reddy, <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
It is almost 4 months after the (slightly-delayed) 1.2.0 release on December 17/ 2018, so probably time to plan the 1.3.0 release. It would be a good idea to look over the PRs with a 1.3.0 milestone, and tag anything else that should have this milestone appropriately.
I'd like to propose the following schedule:
April 25: branch 1.3.x April 28: rc1 May 11: rc2 (if needed) May 20: final release
Thoughts?
That works for me. There may be a few items in https://github.com/scipy/scipy/milestone/37 that we won't get to, but the only real blocker (py37 build issue) on that list is ready to merge.
Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) *Fiat Lux* _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Matt Haberland Assistant Adjunct Professor in the Program in Computing Department of Mathematics 6617A Math Sciences Building, UCLA _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) *Fiat Lux* _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
We are sitting at 20 open PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A1.3.0 We were close to 30 recently, so let's try to keep it < 20 over the weekend / moving into next week. On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 02:48, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 9:34 AM Mark Mikofski <mikofski@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Hi Tyler,
Thanks again for taking on the release management.
Is there anything that we (as contributors) can do to help? Should we be reviewing the 1.3.0 milestone PR's? What would be most helpful specifically?
Help with reviewing can be a very valuable contribution, not just for a particular release but in general. I think many contributors are under the impression that you need to be a maintainer to review - this definitely isn't the case, as long as you have the knowledge to understand the code in a PR you can help a lot. In particular this is the case for larger PRs that propose new features, because those are often a lot of work to review and require domain-specific knowledge. Here is an example (also tagged for 1.3.0): https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7310, adding a logarithmic FFT implementation. Two kinds of things would be helpful: - someone who understands FFTs well and can review the implementation - someone who needs the feature, and can test it and confirm that everything works as expected
A couple more in the same vein: - peak declustering for scipy.signal: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9513 - RotationSpline for scipy.spatial.transform: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9831 - support for ARFF relational attributes in scipy.io: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9854
Cheers, Ralf
I read through the dev guide ( https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/index.html) and hacking guidelines (https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/hacking.html), and I looked at the 1.3.0 milestones, and it seems like reviewing PR's with the fewest comments might be the best approach. Would that help?
Cheers, Mark
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 5:42 PM Matt Haberland <haberland@ucla.edu> wrote:
I'd like to get #10026 in there, too. SuiteSparse seems to routinely speed up `linprog` by a factor of 2-4 (when available).
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 7:40 AM Mark Alexander Mikofski < mikofski@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Hi Tyler,
Thanks for managing the release again! This is a very important service for the SciPy community, and I'm very grateful!
Do you think we could try to add #9568 and #10052 assuming everyone agrees they are good?
thanks again! Mark
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 2:13 AM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:27 AM Andrew Nelson <andyfaff@gmail.com> wrote:
Would it be possible to add 9990 and 10002 to 1.3.0, or is that too ambitious?
Those look like they're in good shape, should be doable. I've added them to the milestone. Tyler can always remove them again if we run out of time.
On Sun., 14 Apr. 2019, 07:20 Tyler Reddy, <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All, > > It is almost 4 months after the (slightly-delayed) 1.2.0 release on > December 17/ 2018, so probably time to plan the 1.3.0 release. It would be > a good idea to look over the PRs with a 1.3.0 milestone, and tag anything > else that should have this milestone appropriately. > > I'd like to propose the following schedule: > > April 25: branch 1.3.x > April 28: rc1 > May 11: rc2 (if needed) > May 20: final release > > Thoughts? >
That works for me. There may be a few items in https://github.com/scipy/scipy/milestone/37 that we won't get to, but the only real blocker (py37 build issue) on that list is ready to merge.
Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) *Fiat Lux* _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Matt Haberland Assistant Adjunct Professor in the Program in Computing Department of Mathematics 6617A Math Sciences Building, UCLA _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) *Fiat Lux* _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
Down to 5 open PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A1.3.0 On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 17:54, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
We are sitting at 20 open PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A1.3.0
We were close to 30 recently, so let's try to keep it < 20 over the weekend / moving into next week.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 02:48, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 9:34 AM Mark Mikofski <mikofski@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Hi Tyler,
Thanks again for taking on the release management.
Is there anything that we (as contributors) can do to help? Should we be reviewing the 1.3.0 milestone PR's? What would be most helpful specifically?
Help with reviewing can be a very valuable contribution, not just for a particular release but in general. I think many contributors are under the impression that you need to be a maintainer to review - this definitely isn't the case, as long as you have the knowledge to understand the code in a PR you can help a lot. In particular this is the case for larger PRs that propose new features, because those are often a lot of work to review and require domain-specific knowledge. Here is an example (also tagged for 1.3.0): https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7310, adding a logarithmic FFT implementation. Two kinds of things would be helpful: - someone who understands FFTs well and can review the implementation - someone who needs the feature, and can test it and confirm that everything works as expected
A couple more in the same vein: - peak declustering for scipy.signal: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9513 - RotationSpline for scipy.spatial.transform: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9831 - support for ARFF relational attributes in scipy.io: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9854
Cheers, Ralf
I read through the dev guide ( https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/index.html) and hacking guidelines (https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/hacking.html), and I looked at the 1.3.0 milestones, and it seems like reviewing PR's with the fewest comments might be the best approach. Would that help?
Cheers, Mark
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 5:42 PM Matt Haberland <haberland@ucla.edu> wrote:
I'd like to get #10026 in there, too. SuiteSparse seems to routinely speed up `linprog` by a factor of 2-4 (when available).
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 7:40 AM Mark Alexander Mikofski < mikofski@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Hi Tyler,
Thanks for managing the release again! This is a very important service for the SciPy community, and I'm very grateful!
Do you think we could try to add #9568 and #10052 assuming everyone agrees they are good?
thanks again! Mark
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 2:13 AM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:27 AM Andrew Nelson <andyfaff@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would it be possible to add 9990 and 10002 to 1.3.0, or is that too > ambitious? >
Those look like they're in good shape, should be doable. I've added them to the milestone. Tyler can always remove them again if we run out of time.
> On Sun., 14 Apr. 2019, 07:20 Tyler Reddy, <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> It is almost 4 months after the (slightly-delayed) 1.2.0 release on >> December 17/ 2018, so probably time to plan the 1.3.0 release. It would be >> a good idea to look over the PRs with a 1.3.0 milestone, and tag anything >> else that should have this milestone appropriately. >> >> I'd like to propose the following schedule: >> >> April 25: branch 1.3.x >> April 28: rc1 >> May 11: rc2 (if needed) >> May 20: final release >> >> Thoughts? >> > That works for me. There may be a few items in https://github.com/scipy/scipy/milestone/37 that we won't get to, but the only real blocker (py37 build issue) on that list is ready to merge.
Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) *Fiat Lux* _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Matt Haberland Assistant Adjunct Professor in the Program in Computing Department of Mathematics 6617A Math Sciences Building, UCLA _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) *Fiat Lux* _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
There should be no open issues / PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone now. I'm going to work on improving the release notes for a while & open a PR for that soon-ish. On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 15:31, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
Down to 5 open PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A1.3.0
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 17:54, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
We are sitting at 20 open PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A1.3.0
We were close to 30 recently, so let's try to keep it < 20 over the weekend / moving into next week.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 02:48, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 9:34 AM Mark Mikofski <mikofski@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Hi Tyler,
Thanks again for taking on the release management.
Is there anything that we (as contributors) can do to help? Should we be reviewing the 1.3.0 milestone PR's? What would be most helpful specifically?
Help with reviewing can be a very valuable contribution, not just for a particular release but in general. I think many contributors are under the impression that you need to be a maintainer to review - this definitely isn't the case, as long as you have the knowledge to understand the code in a PR you can help a lot. In particular this is the case for larger PRs that propose new features, because those are often a lot of work to review and require domain-specific knowledge. Here is an example (also tagged for 1.3.0): https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7310, adding a logarithmic FFT implementation. Two kinds of things would be helpful: - someone who understands FFTs well and can review the implementation - someone who needs the feature, and can test it and confirm that everything works as expected
A couple more in the same vein: - peak declustering for scipy.signal: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9513 - RotationSpline for scipy.spatial.transform: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9831 - support for ARFF relational attributes in scipy.io: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9854
Cheers, Ralf
I read through the dev guide ( https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/index.html) and hacking guidelines (https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/hacking.html), and I looked at the 1.3.0 milestones, and it seems like reviewing PR's with the fewest comments might be the best approach. Would that help?
Cheers, Mark
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 5:42 PM Matt Haberland <haberland@ucla.edu> wrote:
I'd like to get #10026 in there, too. SuiteSparse seems to routinely speed up `linprog` by a factor of 2-4 (when available).
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 7:40 AM Mark Alexander Mikofski < mikofski@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Hi Tyler,
Thanks for managing the release again! This is a very important service for the SciPy community, and I'm very grateful!
Do you think we could try to add #9568 and #10052 assuming everyone agrees they are good?
thanks again! Mark
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 2:13 AM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:27 AM Andrew Nelson <andyfaff@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Would it be possible to add 9990 and 10002 to 1.3.0, or is that too >> ambitious? >> > > Those look like they're in good shape, should be doable. I've added > them to the milestone. Tyler can always remove them again if we run out of > time. > > >> On Sun., 14 Apr. 2019, 07:20 Tyler Reddy, <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> It is almost 4 months after the (slightly-delayed) 1.2.0 release >>> on December 17/ 2018, so probably time to plan the 1.3.0 release. It would >>> be a good idea to look over the PRs with a 1.3.0 milestone, and tag >>> anything else that should have this milestone appropriately. >>> >>> I'd like to propose the following schedule: >>> >>> April 25: branch 1.3.x >>> April 28: rc1 >>> May 11: rc2 (if needed) >>> May 20: final release >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >> > That works for me. There may be a few items in > https://github.com/scipy/scipy/milestone/37 that we won't get to, > but the only real blocker (py37 build issue) on that list is ready to merge. > > Cheers, > Ralf > > _______________________________________________ > SciPy-Dev mailing list > SciPy-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >
-- Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) *Fiat Lux* _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Matt Haberland Assistant Adjunct Professor in the Program in Computing Department of Mathematics 6617A Math Sciences Building, UCLA _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) *Fiat Lux* _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
The release notes / mailmap PR is open, please do have a look at your attribution as appropriate: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/10097 On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 10:59, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
There should be no open issues / PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone now. I'm going to work on improving the release notes for a while & open a PR for that soon-ish.
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 15:31, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
Down to 5 open PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A1.3.0
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 17:54, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
We are sitting at 20 open PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A1.3.0
We were close to 30 recently, so let's try to keep it < 20 over the weekend / moving into next week.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 02:48, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 9:34 AM Mark Mikofski <mikofski@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Hi Tyler,
Thanks again for taking on the release management.
Is there anything that we (as contributors) can do to help? Should we be reviewing the 1.3.0 milestone PR's? What would be most helpful specifically?
Help with reviewing can be a very valuable contribution, not just for a particular release but in general. I think many contributors are under the impression that you need to be a maintainer to review - this definitely isn't the case, as long as you have the knowledge to understand the code in a PR you can help a lot. In particular this is the case for larger PRs that propose new features, because those are often a lot of work to review and require domain-specific knowledge. Here is an example (also tagged for 1.3.0): https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7310, adding a logarithmic FFT implementation. Two kinds of things would be helpful: - someone who understands FFTs well and can review the implementation - someone who needs the feature, and can test it and confirm that everything works as expected
A couple more in the same vein: - peak declustering for scipy.signal: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9513 - RotationSpline for scipy.spatial.transform: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9831 - support for ARFF relational attributes in scipy.io: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9854
Cheers, Ralf
I read through the dev guide ( https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/index.html) and hacking guidelines ( https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/hacking.html), and I looked at the 1.3.0 milestones, and it seems like reviewing PR's with the fewest comments might be the best approach. Would that help?
Cheers, Mark
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 5:42 PM Matt Haberland <haberland@ucla.edu> wrote:
I'd like to get #10026 in there, too. SuiteSparse seems to routinely speed up `linprog` by a factor of 2-4 (when available).
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 7:40 AM Mark Alexander Mikofski < mikofski@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Hi Tyler, > > Thanks for managing the release again! This is a very important > service for the SciPy community, and I'm very grateful! > > Do you think we could try to add #9568 and #10052 assuming everyone > agrees they are good? > > thanks again! > Mark > > On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 2:13 AM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:27 AM Andrew Nelson <andyfaff@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Would it be possible to add 9990 and 10002 to 1.3.0, or is that >>> too ambitious? >>> >> >> Those look like they're in good shape, should be doable. I've added >> them to the milestone. Tyler can always remove them again if we run out of >> time. >> >> >>> On Sun., 14 Apr. 2019, 07:20 Tyler Reddy, < >>> tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> It is almost 4 months after the (slightly-delayed) 1.2.0 release >>>> on December 17/ 2018, so probably time to plan the 1.3.0 release. It would >>>> be a good idea to look over the PRs with a 1.3.0 milestone, and tag >>>> anything else that should have this milestone appropriately. >>>> >>>> I'd like to propose the following schedule: >>>> >>>> April 25: branch 1.3.x >>>> April 28: rc1 >>>> May 11: rc2 (if needed) >>>> May 20: final release >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>> >> That works for me. There may be a few items in >> https://github.com/scipy/scipy/milestone/37 that we won't get to, >> but the only real blocker (py37 build issue) on that list is ready to merge. >> >> Cheers, >> Ralf >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SciPy-Dev mailing list >> SciPy-Dev@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >> > > > -- > Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) > *Fiat Lux* > _______________________________________________ > SciPy-Dev mailing list > SciPy-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >
-- Matt Haberland Assistant Adjunct Professor in the Program in Computing Department of Mathematics 6617A Math Sciences Building, UCLA _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) *Fiat Lux* _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
There have been some helpful comments on the release notes, but there are sufficient revisions requested that I'll likely delay completion / merge of that PR until morning of April 26 (tomorrow). Please be mindful merging PRs until the notes get merged & I cut the branch, thanks :) On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 16:18, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
The release notes / mailmap PR is open, please do have a look at your attribution as appropriate: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/10097
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 10:59, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
There should be no open issues / PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone now. I'm going to work on improving the release notes for a while & open a PR for that soon-ish.
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 15:31, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
Down to 5 open PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A1.3.0
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 17:54, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
We are sitting at 20 open PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A1.3.0
We were close to 30 recently, so let's try to keep it < 20 over the weekend / moving into next week.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 02:48, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 9:34 AM Mark Mikofski <mikofski@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Hi Tyler,
Thanks again for taking on the release management.
Is there anything that we (as contributors) can do to help? Should we be reviewing the 1.3.0 milestone PR's? What would be most helpful specifically?
Help with reviewing can be a very valuable contribution, not just for a particular release but in general. I think many contributors are under the impression that you need to be a maintainer to review - this definitely isn't the case, as long as you have the knowledge to understand the code in a PR you can help a lot. In particular this is the case for larger PRs that propose new features, because those are often a lot of work to review and require domain-specific knowledge. Here is an example (also tagged for 1.3.0): https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7310, adding a logarithmic FFT implementation. Two kinds of things would be helpful: - someone who understands FFTs well and can review the implementation - someone who needs the feature, and can test it and confirm that everything works as expected
A couple more in the same vein: - peak declustering for scipy.signal: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9513 - RotationSpline for scipy.spatial.transform: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9831 - support for ARFF relational attributes in scipy.io: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9854
Cheers, Ralf
I read through the dev guide ( https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/index.html) and hacking guidelines ( https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/hacking.html), and I looked at the 1.3.0 milestones, and it seems like reviewing PR's with the fewest comments might be the best approach. Would that help?
Cheers, Mark
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 5:42 PM Matt Haberland <haberland@ucla.edu> wrote:
> I'd like to get #10026 in there, too. SuiteSparse seems to routinely > speed up `linprog` by a factor of 2-4 (when available). > > On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 7:40 AM Mark Alexander Mikofski < > mikofski@berkeley.edu> wrote: > >> Hi Tyler, >> >> Thanks for managing the release again! This is a very important >> service for the SciPy community, and I'm very grateful! >> >> Do you think we could try to add #9568 and #10052 assuming everyone >> agrees they are good? >> >> thanks again! >> Mark >> >> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 2:13 AM Ralf Gommers < >> ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:27 AM Andrew Nelson <andyfaff@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Would it be possible to add 9990 and 10002 to 1.3.0, or is that >>>> too ambitious? >>>> >>> >>> Those look like they're in good shape, should be doable. I've >>> added them to the milestone. Tyler can always remove them again if we run >>> out of time. >>> >>> >>>> On Sun., 14 Apr. 2019, 07:20 Tyler Reddy, < >>>> tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> It is almost 4 months after the (slightly-delayed) 1.2.0 release >>>>> on December 17/ 2018, so probably time to plan the 1.3.0 release. It would >>>>> be a good idea to look over the PRs with a 1.3.0 milestone, and tag >>>>> anything else that should have this milestone appropriately. >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to propose the following schedule: >>>>> >>>>> April 25: branch 1.3.x >>>>> April 28: rc1 >>>>> May 11: rc2 (if needed) >>>>> May 20: final release >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>> >>> That works for me. There may be a few items in >>> https://github.com/scipy/scipy/milestone/37 that we won't get to, >>> but the only real blocker (py37 build issue) on that list is ready to merge. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Ralf >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> SciPy-Dev mailing list >>> SciPy-Dev@python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >>> >> >> >> -- >> Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) >> *Fiat Lux* >> _______________________________________________ >> SciPy-Dev mailing list >> SciPy-Dev@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >> > > > -- > Matt Haberland > Assistant Adjunct Professor in the Program in Computing > Department of Mathematics > 6617A Math Sciences Building, UCLA > _______________________________________________ > SciPy-Dev mailing list > SciPy-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >
-- Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) *Fiat Lux* _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
SciPy 1.3.x was branched (not released) at 9:40 am Pacific on April 26/ 2019 Master branch is now open for the development of SciPy 1.4.0 On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 21:50, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
There have been some helpful comments on the release notes, but there are sufficient revisions requested that I'll likely delay completion / merge of that PR until morning of April 26 (tomorrow). Please be mindful merging PRs until the notes get merged & I cut the branch, thanks :)
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 16:18, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
The release notes / mailmap PR is open, please do have a look at your attribution as appropriate: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/10097
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 10:59, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
There should be no open issues / PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone now. I'm going to work on improving the release notes for a while & open a PR for that soon-ish.
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 15:31, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
Down to 5 open PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A1.3.0
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 17:54, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
We are sitting at 20 open PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A1.3.0
We were close to 30 recently, so let's try to keep it < 20 over the weekend / moving into next week.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 02:48, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 9:34 AM Mark Mikofski <mikofski@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Hi Tyler, > > Thanks again for taking on the release management. > > Is there anything that we (as contributors) can do to help? Should > we be reviewing the 1.3.0 milestone PR's? What would be most helpful > specifically? >
Help with reviewing can be a very valuable contribution, not just for a particular release but in general. I think many contributors are under the impression that you need to be a maintainer to review - this definitely isn't the case, as long as you have the knowledge to understand the code in a PR you can help a lot. In particular this is the case for larger PRs that propose new features, because those are often a lot of work to review and require domain-specific knowledge. Here is an example (also tagged for 1.3.0): https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7310, adding a logarithmic FFT implementation. Two kinds of things would be helpful: - someone who understands FFTs well and can review the implementation - someone who needs the feature, and can test it and confirm that everything works as expected
A couple more in the same vein: - peak declustering for scipy.signal: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9513 - RotationSpline for scipy.spatial.transform: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9831 - support for ARFF relational attributes in scipy.io: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9854
Cheers, Ralf
> I read through the dev guide ( > https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/index.html) and > hacking guidelines ( > https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/hacking.html), and I > looked at the 1.3.0 milestones, and it seems like reviewing PR's with the > fewest comments might be the best approach. Would that help? > > Cheers, > Mark > > On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 5:42 PM Matt Haberland <haberland@ucla.edu> > wrote: > >> I'd like to get #10026 in there, too. SuiteSparse seems to >> routinely speed up `linprog` by a factor of 2-4 (when available). >> >> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 7:40 AM Mark Alexander Mikofski < >> mikofski@berkeley.edu> wrote: >> >>> Hi Tyler, >>> >>> Thanks for managing the release again! This is a very important >>> service for the SciPy community, and I'm very grateful! >>> >>> Do you think we could try to add #9568 and #10052 assuming >>> everyone agrees they are good? >>> >>> thanks again! >>> Mark >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 2:13 AM Ralf Gommers < >>> ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:27 AM Andrew Nelson < >>>> andyfaff@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Would it be possible to add 9990 and 10002 to 1.3.0, or is that >>>>> too ambitious? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Those look like they're in good shape, should be doable. I've >>>> added them to the milestone. Tyler can always remove them again if we run >>>> out of time. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sun., 14 Apr. 2019, 07:20 Tyler Reddy, < >>>>> tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> >>>>>> It is almost 4 months after the (slightly-delayed) 1.2.0 >>>>>> release on December 17/ 2018, so probably time to plan the 1.3.0 release. >>>>>> It would be a good idea to look over the PRs with a 1.3.0 milestone, and >>>>>> tag anything else that should have this milestone appropriately. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to propose the following schedule: >>>>>> >>>>>> April 25: branch 1.3.x >>>>>> April 28: rc1 >>>>>> May 11: rc2 (if needed) >>>>>> May 20: final release >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> That works for me. There may be a few items in >>>> https://github.com/scipy/scipy/milestone/37 that we won't get >>>> to, but the only real blocker (py37 build issue) on that list is ready to >>>> merge. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Ralf >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> SciPy-Dev mailing list >>>> SciPy-Dev@python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) >>> *Fiat Lux* >>> _______________________________________________ >>> SciPy-Dev mailing list >>> SciPy-Dev@python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >>> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Haberland >> Assistant Adjunct Professor in the Program in Computing >> Department of Mathematics >> 6617A Math Sciences Building, UCLA >> _______________________________________________ >> SciPy-Dev mailing list >> SciPy-Dev@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >> > > > -- > Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) > *Fiat Lux* > _______________________________________________ > SciPy-Dev mailing list > SciPy-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev > _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
On 4/26/19, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
SciPy 1.3.x was branched (not released) at 9:40 am Pacific on April 26/ 2019 Master branch is now open for the development of SciPy 1.4.0
Tyler, thanks for all the great work you've been doing on the release! Hopefully the release candidate will go smoothly and we'll soon have a shiny new 1.3.0. Warren
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 21:50, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
There have been some helpful comments on the release notes, but there are sufficient revisions requested that I'll likely delay completion / merge of that PR until morning of April 26 (tomorrow). Please be mindful merging PRs until the notes get merged & I cut the branch, thanks :)
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 16:18, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
The release notes / mailmap PR is open, please do have a look at your attribution as appropriate: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/10097
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 10:59, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
There should be no open issues / PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone now. I'm going to work on improving the release notes for a while & open a PR for that soon-ish.
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 15:31, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
Down to 5 open PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A1.3.0
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 17:54, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
We are sitting at 20 open PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A1.3.0
We were close to 30 recently, so let's try to keep it < 20 over the weekend / moving into next week.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 02:48, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 9:34 AM Mark Mikofski > <mikofski@berkeley.edu> > wrote: > >> Hi Tyler, >> >> Thanks again for taking on the release management. >> >> Is there anything that we (as contributors) can do to help? Should >> we be reviewing the 1.3.0 milestone PR's? What would be most >> helpful >> specifically? >> > > Help with reviewing can be a very valuable contribution, not just > for > a particular release but in general. I think many contributors are > under > the impression that you need to be a maintainer to review - this > definitely > isn't the case, as long as you have the knowledge to understand the > code in > a PR you can help a lot. In particular this is the case for larger > PRs that > propose new features, because those are often a lot of work to review > and > require domain-specific knowledge. Here is an example (also tagged > for > 1.3.0): https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7310, adding a > logarithmic FFT implementation. Two kinds of things would be > helpful: > - someone who understands FFTs well and can review the > implementation > - someone who needs the feature, and can test it and confirm that > everything works as expected > > A couple more in the same vein: > - peak declustering for scipy.signal: > https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9513 > - RotationSpline for scipy.spatial.transform: > https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9831 > - support for ARFF relational attributes in scipy.io: > https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9854 > > Cheers, > Ralf > > >> I read through the dev guide ( >> https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/index.html) and >> hacking guidelines ( >> https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/hacking.html), and I >> looked at the 1.3.0 milestones, and it seems like reviewing PR's >> with the >> fewest comments might be the best approach. Would that help? >> >> Cheers, >> Mark >> >> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 5:42 PM Matt Haberland <haberland@ucla.edu> >> wrote: >> >>> I'd like to get #10026 in there, too. SuiteSparse seems to >>> routinely speed up `linprog` by a factor of 2-4 (when available). >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 7:40 AM Mark Alexander Mikofski < >>> mikofski@berkeley.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Tyler, >>>> >>>> Thanks for managing the release again! This is a very important >>>> service for the SciPy community, and I'm very grateful! >>>> >>>> Do you think we could try to add #9568 and #10052 assuming >>>> everyone agrees they are good? >>>> >>>> thanks again! >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 2:13 AM Ralf Gommers < >>>> ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:27 AM Andrew Nelson < >>>>> andyfaff@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Would it be possible to add 9990 and 10002 to 1.3.0, or is that >>>>>> too ambitious? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Those look like they're in good shape, should be doable. I've >>>>> added them to the milestone. Tyler can always remove them again >>>>> if we run >>>>> out of time. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun., 14 Apr. 2019, 07:20 Tyler Reddy, < >>>>>> tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is almost 4 months after the (slightly-delayed) 1.2.0 >>>>>>> release on December 17/ 2018, so probably time to plan the >>>>>>> 1.3.0 release. >>>>>>> It would be a good idea to look over the PRs with a 1.3.0 >>>>>>> milestone, and >>>>>>> tag anything else that should have this milestone >>>>>>> appropriately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd like to propose the following schedule: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> April 25: branch 1.3.x >>>>>>> April 28: rc1 >>>>>>> May 11: rc2 (if needed) >>>>>>> May 20: final release >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> That works for me. There may be a few items in >>>>> https://github.com/scipy/scipy/milestone/37 that we won't get >>>>> to, but the only real blocker (py37 build issue) on that list is >>>>> ready to >>>>> merge. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Ralf >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> SciPy-Dev mailing list >>>>> SciPy-Dev@python.org >>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) >>>> *Fiat Lux* >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> SciPy-Dev mailing list >>>> SciPy-Dev@python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Haberland >>> Assistant Adjunct Professor in the Program in Computing >>> Department of Mathematics >>> 6617A Math Sciences Building, UCLA >>> _______________________________________________ >>> SciPy-Dev mailing list >>> SciPy-Dev@python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >>> >> >> >> -- >> Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) >> *Fiat Lux* >> _______________________________________________ >> SciPy-Dev mailing list >> SciPy-Dev@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > SciPy-Dev mailing list > SciPy-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 3:13 AM Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
SciPy 1.3.x was branched (not released) at 9:40 am Pacific on April 26/ 2019 Master branch is now open for the development of SciPy 1.4.0
Great, thanks Tyler!
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 21:50, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
There have been some helpful comments on the release notes, but there are sufficient revisions requested that I'll likely delay completion / merge of that PR until morning of April 26 (tomorrow). Please be mindful merging PRs until the notes get merged & I cut the branch, thanks :)
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 16:18, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
The release notes / mailmap PR is open, please do have a look at your attribution as appropriate: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/10097
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 10:59, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
There should be no open issues / PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone now. I'm going to work on improving the release notes for a while & open a PR for that soon-ish.
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 15:31, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
Down to 5 open PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A1.3.0
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 17:54, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
We are sitting at 20 open PRs with the 1.3.0 milestone: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A1.3.0
We were close to 30 recently, so let's try to keep it < 20 over the weekend / moving into next week.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 02:48, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 9:34 AM Mark Mikofski <mikofski@berkeley.edu> > wrote: > >> Hi Tyler, >> >> Thanks again for taking on the release management. >> >> Is there anything that we (as contributors) can do to help? Should >> we be reviewing the 1.3.0 milestone PR's? What would be most helpful >> specifically? >> > > Help with reviewing can be a very valuable contribution, not just > for a particular release but in general. I think many contributors are > under the impression that you need to be a maintainer to review - this > definitely isn't the case, as long as you have the knowledge to understand > the code in a PR you can help a lot. In particular this is the case for > larger PRs that propose new features, because those are often a lot of work > to review and require domain-specific knowledge. Here is an example (also > tagged for 1.3.0): https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7310, adding > a logarithmic FFT implementation. Two kinds of things would be helpful: > - someone who understands FFTs well and can review the implementation > - someone who needs the feature, and can test it and confirm that > everything works as expected > > A couple more in the same vein: > - peak declustering for scipy.signal: > https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9513 > - RotationSpline for scipy.spatial.transform: > https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9831 > - support for ARFF relational attributes in scipy.io: > https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9854 > > Cheers, > Ralf > > >> I read through the dev guide ( >> https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/index.html) and >> hacking guidelines ( >> https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/hacking.html), and I >> looked at the 1.3.0 milestones, and it seems like reviewing PR's with the >> fewest comments might be the best approach. Would that help? >> >> Cheers, >> Mark >> >> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 5:42 PM Matt Haberland <haberland@ucla.edu> >> wrote: >> >>> I'd like to get #10026 in there, too. SuiteSparse seems to >>> routinely speed up `linprog` by a factor of 2-4 (when available). >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 7:40 AM Mark Alexander Mikofski < >>> mikofski@berkeley.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Tyler, >>>> >>>> Thanks for managing the release again! This is a very important >>>> service for the SciPy community, and I'm very grateful! >>>> >>>> Do you think we could try to add #9568 and #10052 assuming >>>> everyone agrees they are good? >>>> >>>> thanks again! >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 2:13 AM Ralf Gommers < >>>> ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:27 AM Andrew Nelson < >>>>> andyfaff@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Would it be possible to add 9990 and 10002 to 1.3.0, or is that >>>>>> too ambitious? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Those look like they're in good shape, should be doable. I've >>>>> added them to the milestone. Tyler can always remove them again if we run >>>>> out of time. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun., 14 Apr. 2019, 07:20 Tyler Reddy, < >>>>>> tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is almost 4 months after the (slightly-delayed) 1.2.0 >>>>>>> release on December 17/ 2018, so probably time to plan the 1.3.0 release. >>>>>>> It would be a good idea to look over the PRs with a 1.3.0 milestone, and >>>>>>> tag anything else that should have this milestone appropriately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd like to propose the following schedule: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> April 25: branch 1.3.x >>>>>>> April 28: rc1 >>>>>>> May 11: rc2 (if needed) >>>>>>> May 20: final release >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> That works for me. There may be a few items in >>>>> https://github.com/scipy/scipy/milestone/37 that we won't get >>>>> to, but the only real blocker (py37 build issue) on that list is ready to >>>>> merge. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Ralf >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> SciPy-Dev mailing list >>>>> SciPy-Dev@python.org >>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) >>>> *Fiat Lux* >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> SciPy-Dev mailing list >>>> SciPy-Dev@python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Haberland >>> Assistant Adjunct Professor in the Program in Computing >>> Department of Mathematics >>> 6617A Math Sciences Building, UCLA >>> _______________________________________________ >>> SciPy-Dev mailing list >>> SciPy-Dev@python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >>> >> >> >> -- >> Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005) >> *Fiat Lux* >> _______________________________________________ >> SciPy-Dev mailing list >> SciPy-Dev@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > SciPy-Dev mailing list > SciPy-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev > _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
participants (7)
-
Andrew Nelson -
Mark Alexander Mikofski -
Mark Mikofski
-
Matt Haberland -
Ralf Gommers -
Tyler Reddy -
Warren Weckesser