[IPython-dev] Release plans, yet again. And a road to 1.0, believe it or not.

Fernando Perez fperez.net at gmail.com
Fri Apr 8 13:32:44 EDT 2011

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Thomas Kluyver <takowl at gmail.com> wrote:
> Critical bugs:
> - 336: Missing figure development/figs/iopubfade.png for docs (Min; should
> be an easy fix)
> - 8: Ensure %gui qt works with new Mayavi and pylab (Fernando, I think you
> were looking into this at sage days. You've commented there that you want
> Brian's input.)

I think the final answer is simply that we can work well with
pylab/mayavi on Qt, but arbitrary random Qt apps won't work well.
Even using the inputhook support I got strange lockups if I tried to
rerun a Qt app multiple times.  There *may* be a way out of this, but
I don't know what it is, and it will require more Qt expertise than I

On the up side, the support for interactive traits apps, mayavi and
matplotlib (even both simultaneously) seems *very* robust.  Those are
our primary 'customers' for now, so on that front we're OK.  We'd be
happy to continue improving the gui support if someone who knows that
stuff well pitches in, but not by adding the old nasty threading
hacks, that were very brittle.

> - 297: Shouldn't use pexpect for subprocesses in in-process terminal
> frontend (Reported by Min, no comments there yet)

Just commented, that's mine.

> - 175: Qt console needs configuration support (Brian, is this part of your
> config plans?)

Yes, that should be part of the config work, I'll help there too.

> - 66: Update the main What's New document to reflect work on 0.11 (Brian,
> Fernando)
> [Seems it would almost be easier to write a What's not new document!]

I know :)

> There are 12 high priority bugs
> (https://github.com/ipython/ipython/issues/labels/prio-high). Should any of
> these be considered blocking?

I just went through them, commented on some, and these two would be my
only candidates to promoting to critical:


The first one I'm reluctant to, see comments for details.  But it
would be great to see it fixed once and for all (and at least even a
KnownFailure test would be already an improvement).

The second one is a real regression that I think we really should fix.
 If you think you can take a shot at it, go ahead and make it critical
and pound on it.

> Anything else that I've missed?

The only other thing I have in mind is this idea I've just filed, but
I don't want to make it a blocker unless Evan (or anyone else with
good Qt chops) happens to have time/bandwidth to work on it.
Otherwise it will just sit there.  I'll send a separate email about
that to ping our Qt gurus:


Beyond that, nothing else comes to mind right now.  Thanks a lot for the triage!



More information about the IPython-dev mailing list