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

[Thomas Kluyver]

On 8 April 2011 18:32, Fernando Perez <fperez.net at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> have.
>

OK. It seems fair enough that we can consider that fixed (or at least
non-blocking), then.


> I just went through them, commented on some, and these two would be my
> only candidates to promoting to critical:
>
> https://github.com/ipython/ipython/issues/29
> https://github.com/ipython/ipython/issues/296
>
> 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.
>

The first one (pickling classes defined interactively) I agree with what
you've said in the comments: we've lived with it for some time already, and
we don't know of an easy way to fix it. I suggest we don't block on it for
0.11, we can always decide to block a later release on it if we want. Of
course, if someone has a moment of inspiration on how to do it, that'd be
great.

The second one (automatic calling of pdb) I'll try to have a look at. At the
least, if it's not working, we shouldn't be offering the function. Also, I
notice that %pdb's docstring refers to ipythonrc, so I guess a review of the
docs wouldn't go amiss.

Thanks,
Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/ipython-dev/attachments/20110408/6a9e905f/attachment.html>