[scikit-image] Gearing up for 0.13

[Egor Panfilov]

Hi all,

+1 from me to go on with the release. Those bugs are the long-lasting ones,
and don't seem to be easily fixed.
As for pytest migration, I think we can't reschedule it for 0.13.1 or
something. Most of the work is done there, we just need to re-iterate with
the recent additions.

Regards,
Egor

2017-03-25 19:55 GMT+03:00 Steven Silvester <steven.silvester at gmail.com>:

> To be clear, I meant the 32 bit fixes.  Happy to include Nelle's PR.
>
>
> Sent from phone.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Steven Silvester <steven.silvester at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 25, 2017 11:53:26 AM
> *To:* scikit-image at python.org; Johannes Schönberger
>
> *Subject:* Re: [scikit-image] Gearing up for 0.13
>
> +1 for a release without the testing fixes.
>
>
> Sent from phone.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* scikit-image <scikit-image-bounces+steven.silvester=
> gmail.com at python.org> on behalf of Johannes Schönberger <jsch at demuc.de>
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 25, 2017 11:47:22 AM
> *To:* scikit-image at python.org
> *Subject:* Re: [scikit-image] Gearing up for 0.13
>
> Trying to ship 0.13 sounds good to me! And those 32-bit bugs can be
> back-ported.
>
> Cheers,
> Johannes
>
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017, at 05:19 PM, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote:
>
> That’s fine. My general approach is to merge things as they’re ready.
> That’s the point of continuous integration. =) Would you like to have a
> stab at the rebase? If you ping me here I’ll review ASAP.
>
> CC list: sorry, I forgot to reply-all earlier. Full (tiny) thread below.
>
> On 25 Mar 2017, 12:09 PM -0400, Nelle Varoquaux <nelle.varoquaux at gmail.com>,
> wrote:
>
> His point was that backporting would be easier if it was merged before.
>
> On 25 March 2017 at 09:03, Juan Nunez-Iglesias <jni.soma at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Oh! I thought the consensus was to have it *after* the release!
> #releasemanagerfail =P But it’s still on the 0.14 milestone. And looking at
> the comments it’s not clear that he wanted that? Anyway, I’m personally
> happy to merge if a rebase fixes the failing travis build.
>
> On 25 Mar 2017, 11:57 AM -0400, Nelle Varoquaux <nelle.varoquaux at gmail.com>,
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 25 March 2017 at 08:37, Juan Nunez-Iglesias <jni.soma at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> We’ve had these two 32-bit blockers
> <https://github.com/scikit-image/scikit-image/milestone/6> holding up
> 0.13 for a couple of months now. Importantly, both of these bugs:
> - existed in 0.12
> - are only testing bugs, not actual bugs (as far as I can tell)
>
> Therefore, I’ve proposed to ship 0.13.0 before fixing them. When we do fix
> them, we can back-port to 0.13.1/2/3. Stéfan was on board with this plan.
> If there are no objections, I’ll get the ball rolling shortly on the
> release. But, I wanted to give people a chance to comment on the decision
> before starting. =)
>
>
> Stéfan wanted my pytest PR in before the release. Is that still the case?
>
> Cheers,
> N
>
>
>
> Juan.
>
> _______________________________________________
> scikit-image mailing list
> scikit-image at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image
>
> *_______________________________________________*
> scikit-image mailing list
> scikit-image at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> scikit-image mailing list
> scikit-image at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scikit-image/attachments/20170325/3fba1829/attachment-0001.html>