Re: Final push for NumPy 1.0.5 (I need your help!)

[James Philbin]

I've posted patches for:

#630: If float('123.45') works, so should numpy.float32('123.45')
#581: random.set_state does not reset state of random.standard_normal

James

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Anne Archibald
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 04/04/2008, Travis E. Oliphant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  > Hey Anne,
>  >
>  >  Do you currently have SVN access?   Would you like it?
>  >
>  >  I think the SciPy/NumPy sprint would be a good time to clean-up the
>  >  committers list and add new people interested in helping.
>
>  I don't have SVN access. I'd be happy (and careful!) to have it, but I
>  should warn you that I won't have time to do serious, regular
>  development on scipy/numpy; I do hope to be able to write a little
>  code here and there, though, and it would be handy to be able to add
>  it directly instead of sending patches into the ether.
>
>  Anne
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  Numpy-discussion mailing list
>  [hidden email]
>  http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>

_______________________________________________
Numpy-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

[Anne Archibald]

On 05/04/2008, James Philbin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I've posted patches for:
>
>  #630: If float('123.45') works, so should numpy.float32('123.45')
>  #581: random.set_state does not reset state of random.standard_normal

Patches for #601, #622, #692, #696, #717 now in trac; I'd like to do
something about #720 (variance of complex arrays needs docs and
tests), but any patch for it is necessarily going to tread on the toes
of my patch for #696 (ddof parameter to var needs tests). I'm not
quite sure what the best way to handle this sort of thing is.

More generally, my local working copy is now rater divergent from the
upstream. What's the recommended way to deal with this? Make sure I
have all the patches submitted to trac, then just revert to raw SVN?
So far I've just been editing the output of svn diff down to only the
bit that's relevant to each patch, but it's getting pretty long.

Anne
_______________________________________________
Numpy-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

[Charles R Harris]

On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Anne Archibald <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 05/04/2008, James Philbin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I've posted patches for:
>
>  #630: If float('123.45') works, so should numpy.float32('123.45')
>  #581: random.set_state does not reset state of random.standard_normal

Patches for #601, #622, #692, #696, #717 now in trac; I'd like to do
something about #720 (variance of complex arrays needs docs and
tests), but any patch for it is necessarily going to tread on the toes
of my patch for #696 (ddof parameter to var needs tests). I'm not
quite sure what the best way to handle this sort of thing is.

More generally, my local working copy is now rater divergent from the
upstream. What's the recommended way to deal with this? Make sure I
have all the patches submitted to trac, then just revert to raw SVN?
So far I've just been editing the output of svn diff down to only the
bit that's relevant to each patch, but it's getting pretty long.

Do you have commit access now? You could pull a fresh copy of svn, apply your patches one by one, and commit each time. That way you can avoid conflicts, which can be a pain when your local copy has diverged a lot from upstream. Lots of small commented changes are also preferable to one big patch.

Chuck

_______________________________________________
Numpy-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

[Anne Archibald]

On 05/04/2008, Charles R Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Anne Archibald <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > More generally, my local working copy is now rater divergent from the
> > upstream. What's the recommended way to deal with this? Make sure I
> > have all the patches submitted to trac, then just revert to raw SVN?
> > So far I've just been editing the output of svn diff down to only the
> > bit that's relevant to each patch, but it's getting pretty long.
>
> Do you have commit access now? You could pull a fresh copy of svn, apply
> your patches one by one, and commit each time. That way you can avoid
> conflicts, which can be a pain when your local copy has diverged a lot from
> upstream. Lots of small commented changes are also preferable to one big
> patch.

No, or at least, I don't know a username/password to use. I also don't
seem to be able to change the status of bugs on the trac.

Anne
_______________________________________________
Numpy-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

[James Philbin]

OK, here's a patch for:
#718: Bug with numpy.float32.tolist

Can someone commit it (I hope someone has committed the other patches
i've sent)?

James

_______________________________________________
Numpy-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

[Alan G Isaac]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008, James Philbin apparently wrote:
> OK, here's a patch for:
> #718: Bug with numpy.float32.tolist

My impression has always been that to ensure
a patch gets appropriate consideration it
should be attached to a ticket...

fwiw,
Alan Isaac



_______________________________________________
Numpy-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

[Travis Oliphant-5]

James Philbin wrote:
> OK, here's a patch for:
> #718: Bug with numpy.float32.tolist
>
> Can someone commit it (I hope someone has committed the other patches
> i've sent)?
>  

I don't think this patch should be committed without more discussion.  
This changes behavior and it is intentional that tolist behaves as it
does now.

-Travis O.


_______________________________________________
Numpy-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

[James Philbin]

> My impression has always been that to ensure
> a patch gets appropriate consideration it
> should be attached to a ticket...
Point taken.

> I don't think this patch should be committed without more discussion.
> This changes behavior and it is intentional that tolist behaves as it
> does now.
I somewhat understand the argument about scalar tolist returning just
the number (as it's 0-d), but it really does seem that a function
called 'tolist' should do what it says on the packet (and the function
doc) or be removed for scalars.

James

On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Travis E. Oliphant
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> James Philbin wrote:
>  > OK, here's a patch for:
>  > #718: Bug with numpy.float32.tolist
>  >
>  > Can someone commit it (I hope someone has committed the other patches
>  > i've sent)?
>  >
>
>  I don't think this patch should be committed without more discussion.
>  This changes behavior and it is intentional that tolist behaves as it
>  does now.
>
>  -Travis O.
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Numpy-discussion mailing list
>  [hidden email]
>  http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>

_______________________________________________
Numpy-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

[Stéfan van der Walt]

On 06/04/2008, Alan G Isaac <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008, James Philbin apparently wrote:
>  > OK, here's a patch for:
>  > #718: Bug with numpy.float32.tolist
>
>
> My impression has always been that to ensure
>  a patch gets appropriate consideration it
>  should be attached to a ticket...

And, more importantly, it should be accompanied by a test (I'm guilty
on the float to string ticket mentioned above).  The test not only
verifies the patch's correct behaviour, but also guides the reviewer
in understanding possible use cases, as well as illustrating calling
convention.  Anything that saves the reviewer time improves your
chances of having the patch accepted.  Finally, it is also considerate
of his/her time: you wrote the patch and recently reviewed the code,
so writing a test takes you much less time than it would the reviewer.

That being said, I am very happy with the quality of patches recently
submitted by, amongst others, Pauli, Anne, David and Christoph.  Your
efforts are very much appreciated.

Regards
Stéfan
_______________________________________________
Numpy-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion