[Numpy-discussion] ANN: NumPy 1.7.0b2 release

Ondřej Čertík ondrej.certik at gmail.com
Mon Sep 24 20:27:52 EDT 2012

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Charles R Harris
> <charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Frédéric Bastien <nouiz at nouiz.org> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I tested this new beta on Theano and discovered an interface change
>>> that was not there in the beta 1.
>>> New behavior:
>>> numpy.ndindex().next()
>>> (0,)
>>> Old behavior:
>>> numpy.ndindex().next()
>>> ()
>>> This break some Theano code that look like this:
>>> import numpy
>>> shape=()
>>> out_shape=[12]
>>> random_state=numpy.random.RandomState()
>>> out = numpy.zeros(out_shape, int)
>>> for i in numpy.ndindex(*shape):
>>>     out[i] = random_state.permutation(5)
>>> I suppose this is an regression as the only mention of ndindex in the
>>> first email of this change is that it is faster.
>> I think this problem has been brought up on the list. It is interesting that
>> it turned up after the first beta. Could you do a bisection to discover
>> which commit is responsible?
> No need, the problem is already known. It was introduced by that
> ndindex speed up patch, PR #393, which was backported into the first
> beta as well. There's a follow-up patch in PR #445 that fixes both of
> these issues, though it also exposes some more fundamental issues with
> the nditer API, so there's lots of discussion there about if we want
> some more changes... this is a good summary:
> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/445#issuecomment-8740982
> For 1.7 purposes though the bottom line is that we already have
> multiple acceptable solutions, so both the issues reported here should
> definitely be fixed.

Should we just remove (revert) this PR #393 patch from the release branch?
It shouldn't have been there in the first place, the only reason I included it
is because other patches depended on it and I would have to fix collisions,
and we thought it would be harmless to just include it. Which turned out
to be a mistake, for which I apologize.

That way we'll feel confident that the branch works, and we can get the right
solution into master and test it there.

So I am actually convinced I should simply revert this patch in the
release branch.
Let me know what you think.


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list