[scikit-learn] Preparing a scikit-learn 0.18.2 bugfix release

[Joel Nothman]

Yes, it's a pity that this has had to be delayed due to dev unavailability,
but I don't think we can risk a release without some more quality
assurance. My teaching atm, among other bits of life, is also impacting on
any free time, but even if I find more time, I've already given my support
to many of the PRs currently marked MRG+1
<https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=%22mrg%2B1%22&type=Issues>
(have
I been too profligate with my approvals?!).

Is it worth waiting as long as until the June sprint, but promising to
close the release before end of June? Or else promising a release for end
of May and using the sprint to identify priorities for future releases?

I think for the sake of the contributors, we should make sure that many of
the things that are mostly reviewed get merged before release. For the sake
of the users, we should make sure that as many bugs are fixed as possible;
apart from some wonderful work from Loïc, I feel bug review has not been
receiving as much attention as it should.

Perhaps Olivier's suggestion of 0.18.2 was good after all. :\

On 26 March 2017 at 06:54, Andreas Mueller <t3kcit at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have no bandwidth to help. I will be able to help starting May 7th.
>
>
> On 03/24/2017 05:26 PM, Raghav R V wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Are we still planning on an early April release for v0.19? Could we start
> marking "blockers"?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Andreas Mueller <t3kcit at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 02/07/2017 09:00 PM, Joel Nothman wrote:
>>
>> On 12 January 2017 at 08:51, Gael Varoquaux <
>> gael.varoquaux at normalesup.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 08:41:51AM +1100, Joel Nothman wrote:
>>> > When the two versions deprecation policy was instituted, releases were
>>> much
>>> > more frequent... Is that enough of an excuse?
>>>
>>> I'd rather say that we can here decide that we are giving a longer grace
>>> period.
>>>
>>> I think that slow deprecations are a good things (see titus's blog post
>>> here: http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2017-pof-software-archivability.html )
>>>
>>
>> Given that 0.18 was a very slow release, and the work for removing
>> deprecated material from 0.19 has already been done, I don't think we
>> should revert that. I agree that we can delay the deprecation deadline for
>> 0.20 and 0.21.
>>
>> In terms of release schedule, are we aiming for RC in early-mid March,
>> assuming Andy's above prognostications are correct and he is able to review
>> in a bigger way in a week or so?
>>
>> Sometimes I wonder how Amazon ever gave me a job in forecasting....
>> Spring break is March 13-17th ;)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> scikit-learn mailing list
>> scikit-learn at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Raghav RV
> https://github.com/raghavrv
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> scikit-learn mailing listscikit-learn at python.orghttps://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> scikit-learn mailing list
> scikit-learn at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scikit-learn/attachments/20170326/b0e496e5/attachment-0001.html>