mark florisson | 8 May 20:36 2012
Picon

[Cython] 0.16.1

Ok, so for the bugfix release 0.16.1 I propose that everyone cherry
picks over its own fixes into the release branch (at least Stefan,
since your fixes pertain to your newly merged branches and sometimes
to the master branch itself). This branch should not be merged back
into master, and any additional fixes should go into master and be
picked over to release.

Some things that should still be fixed:
    - nonechecks for memoryviews
    - memoryview documentation
    - more?

We can then shortly-ish after release 0.17 with actual features (and
new bugs, lets call those features too), depending on how many bugs
are still found in 0.16.1.
mark florisson | 8 May 20:52 2012
Picon

Re: [Cython] 0.16.1

On 8 May 2012 19:36, mark florisson <markflorisson88 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, so for the bugfix release 0.16.1 I propose that everyone cherry
> picks over its own fixes into the release branch (at least Stefan,
> since your fixes pertain to your newly merged branches and sometimes
> to the master branch itself). This branch should not be merged back
> into master, and any additional fixes should go into master and be
> picked over to release.
>
> Some things that should still be fixed:
>    - nonechecks for memoryviews
>    - memoryview documentation
>    - more?
>
> We can then shortly-ish after release 0.17 with actual features (and
> new bugs, lets call those features too), depending on how many bugs
> are still found in 0.16.1.

TBH, if we're actually close to a major release, the usefulness of a
bugfix release is imho not that great.
_______________________________________________
cython-devel mailing list
cython-devel <at> python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
Vitja Makarov | 8 May 21:04 2012
Picon

Re: [Cython] 0.16.1

2012/5/8 mark florisson <markflorisson88@...>:
> On 8 May 2012 19:36, mark florisson <markflorisson88@...> wrote:
>> Ok, so for the bugfix release 0.16.1 I propose that everyone cherry
>> picks over its own fixes into the release branch (at least Stefan,
>> since your fixes pertain to your newly merged branches and sometimes
>> to the master branch itself). This branch should not be merged back
>> into master, and any additional fixes should go into master and be
>> picked over to release.
>>
>> Some things that should still be fixed:
>>    - nonechecks for memoryviews
>>    - memoryview documentation
>>    - more?
>>
>> We can then shortly-ish after release 0.17 with actual features (and
>> new bugs, lets call those features too), depending on how many bugs
>> are still found in 0.16.1.
>
> TBH, if we're actually close to a major release, the usefulness of a
> bugfix release is imho not that great.

There are some fixes to generators implementation that depend on
"yield from" that can't be easily cherry-picked.
So I think you're right about 0.17 release. But new features may
introduce new bugs and we'll have to release 0.17.1 soon.

--

-- 
vitja.
Robert Bradshaw | 9 May 00:16 2012
Picon

Re: [Cython] 0.16.1

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Vitja Makarov <vitja.makarov <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/5/8 mark florisson <markflorisson88 <at> gmail.com>:
>> On 8 May 2012 19:36, mark florisson <markflorisson88 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ok, so for the bugfix release 0.16.1 I propose that everyone cherry
>>> picks over its own fixes into the release branch (at least Stefan,
>>> since your fixes pertain to your newly merged branches and sometimes
>>> to the master branch itself). This branch should not be merged back
>>> into master, and any additional fixes should go into master and be
>>> picked over to release.
>>>
>>> Some things that should still be fixed:
>>>    - nonechecks for memoryviews
>>>    - memoryview documentation
>>>    - more?
>>>
>>> We can then shortly-ish after release 0.17 with actual features (and
>>> new bugs, lets call those features too), depending on how many bugs
>>> are still found in 0.16.1.
>>
>> TBH, if we're actually close to a major release, the usefulness of a
>> bugfix release is imho not that great.
>
> There are some fixes to generators implementation that depend on
> "yield from" that can't be easily cherry-picked.
> So I think you're right about 0.17 release. But new features may
> introduce new bugs and we'll have to release 0.17.1 soon.

If we're looking at doing 0.17 soon, lets just do that. In the future,
we could have a bugfix branch that all bugfixes get checked into,
regularly merged into master, which we could release more often as
(Continue reading)

Stefan Behnel | 9 May 08:41 2012
Picon

Re: [Cython] 0.16.1

Robert Bradshaw, 09.05.2012 00:16:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> 2012/5/8 mark florisson:
>>> On 8 May 2012 19:36, mark florisson wrote:
>>>> Ok, so for the bugfix release 0.16.1 I propose that everyone cherry
>>>> picks over its own fixes into the release branch (at least Stefan,
>>>> since your fixes pertain to your newly merged branches and sometimes
>>>> to the master branch itself). This branch should not be merged back
>>>> into master, and any additional fixes should go into master and be
>>>> picked over to release.
>>>>
>>>> Some things that should still be fixed:
>>>>    - nonechecks for memoryviews
>>>>    - memoryview documentation
>>>>    - more?
>>>>
>>>> We can then shortly-ish after release 0.17 with actual features (and
>>>> new bugs, lets call those features too), depending on how many bugs
>>>> are still found in 0.16.1.
>>>
>>> TBH, if we're actually close to a major release, the usefulness of a
>>> bugfix release is imho not that great.
>>
>> There are some fixes to generators implementation that depend on
>> "yield from" that can't be easily cherry-picked.
>> So I think you're right about 0.17 release. But new features may
>> introduce new bugs and we'll have to release 0.17.1 soon.
> 
> If we're looking at doing 0.17 soon, lets just do that.

(Continue reading)

Stefan Behnel | 9 May 09:49 2012
Picon

Re: [Cython] 0.16.1

Stefan Behnel, 09.05.2012 08:41:
> Robert Bradshaw, 09.05.2012 00:16:
>> If we're looking at doing 0.17 soon, lets just do that.
> I think it's close enough to be released.

... although one thing I just noticed is that the "numpy_memoryview" test
is still disabled because it lead to crashes in recent Py3.2 releases (and
thus most likely also in the latest Py3k). Not sure if it still crashes,
but should be checked before going for a release.

Stefan
mark florisson | 9 May 10:32 2012
Picon

Re: [Cython] 0.16.1

On 9 May 2012 08:49, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@...> wrote:
> Stefan Behnel, 09.05.2012 08:41:
>> Robert Bradshaw, 09.05.2012 00:16:
>>> If we're looking at doing 0.17 soon, lets just do that.
>> I think it's close enough to be released.
>
> ... although one thing I just noticed is that the "numpy_memoryview" test
> is still disabled because it lead to crashes in recent Py3.2 releases (and
> thus most likely also in the latest Py3k). Not sure if it still crashes,
> but should be checked before going for a release.

Hm, all the tests or just one? Was that the problem with gc_refs != 0?
That should be fixed now.

> Stefan
> _______________________________________________
> cython-devel mailing list
> cython-devel@...
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
mark florisson | 10 May 21:13 2012
Picon

Re: [Cython] 0.16.1

On 9 May 2012 08:49, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@...> wrote:
> Stefan Behnel, 09.05.2012 08:41:
>> Robert Bradshaw, 09.05.2012 00:16:
>>> If we're looking at doing 0.17 soon, lets just do that.
>> I think it's close enough to be released.
>
> ... although one thing I just noticed is that the "numpy_memoryview" test
> is still disabled because it lead to crashes in recent Py3.2 releases (and
> thus most likely also in the latest Py3k). Not sure if it still crashes,
> but should be checked before going for a release.
>
> Stefan
> _______________________________________________
> cython-devel mailing list
> cython-devel@...
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel

Hurgh. Disabling tests in bugs.txt is terrible, there should have been
a comment in numpy_memoryview saying DISABLED and the testcase
function should have been a noop. Your commit
e3838e42c4b6f67f180d06b8cd75566f3380ab95 broke how typedef types are
compared, which makes the test get a temporary of the wrong type. Let
me try reverting that commit, what was it needed for?
Stefan Behnel | 10 May 22:21 2012
Picon

Re: [Cython] 0.16.1

mark florisson, 10.05.2012 21:13:
> On 9 May 2012 08:49, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> Stefan Behnel, 09.05.2012 08:41:
>>> Robert Bradshaw, 09.05.2012 00:16:
>>>> If we're looking at doing 0.17 soon, lets just do that.
>>> I think it's close enough to be released.
>>
>> ... although one thing I just noticed is that the "numpy_memoryview" test
>> is still disabled because it lead to crashes in recent Py3.2 releases (and
>> thus most likely also in the latest Py3k). Not sure if it still crashes,
>> but should be checked before going for a release.
> 
> Hurgh. Disabling tests in bugs.txt is terrible, there should have been
> a comment in numpy_memoryview saying DISABLED and the testcase
> function should have been a noop.

... or have a release mode in the test runner that barks at disabled tests.

> Your commit
> e3838e42c4b6f67f180d06b8cd75566f3380ab95 broke how typedef types are
> compared, which makes the test get a temporary of the wrong type. Let
> me try reverting that commit, what was it needed for?

It was meant to fix the comparison of different char* ctypedefs. However,
seeing it in retrospect now, it would definitely break user code to compare
ctypedefs by their underlying base type because it's common for users to be
lax about ctypedefs, e.g. for integer types.

I think a better (and substantially safer) way to do it would be to use the
hash value of the underlying declared type, but to make the equals
(Continue reading)

mark florisson | 10 May 22:24 2012
Picon

Re: [Cython] 0.16.1

On 10 May 2012 21:21, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@...> wrote:
> mark florisson, 10.05.2012 21:13:
>> On 9 May 2012 08:49, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> Stefan Behnel, 09.05.2012 08:41:
>>>> Robert Bradshaw, 09.05.2012 00:16:
>>>>> If we're looking at doing 0.17 soon, lets just do that.
>>>> I think it's close enough to be released.
>>>
>>> ... although one thing I just noticed is that the "numpy_memoryview" test
>>> is still disabled because it lead to crashes in recent Py3.2 releases (and
>>> thus most likely also in the latest Py3k). Not sure if it still crashes,
>>> but should be checked before going for a release.
>>
>> Hurgh. Disabling tests in bugs.txt is terrible, there should have been
>> a comment in numpy_memoryview saying DISABLED and the testcase
>> function should have been a noop.
>
> ... or have a release mode in the test runner that barks at disabled tests.
>
>
>> Your commit
>> e3838e42c4b6f67f180d06b8cd75566f3380ab95 broke how typedef types are
>> compared, which makes the test get a temporary of the wrong type. Let
>> me try reverting that commit, what was it needed for?
>
> It was meant to fix the comparison of different char* ctypedefs. However,
> seeing it in retrospect now, it would definitely break user code to compare
> ctypedefs by their underlying base type because it's common for users to be
> lax about ctypedefs, e.g. for integer types.
>
(Continue reading)

mark florisson | 9 May 10:33 2012
Picon

Re: [Cython] 0.16.1

On 9 May 2012 07:41, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml <at> behnel.de> wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw, 09.05.2012 00:16:
>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>>> 2012/5/8 mark florisson:
>>>> On 8 May 2012 19:36, mark florisson wrote:
>>>>> Ok, so for the bugfix release 0.16.1 I propose that everyone cherry
>>>>> picks over its own fixes into the release branch (at least Stefan,
>>>>> since your fixes pertain to your newly merged branches and sometimes
>>>>> to the master branch itself). This branch should not be merged back
>>>>> into master, and any additional fixes should go into master and be
>>>>> picked over to release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some things that should still be fixed:
>>>>>    - nonechecks for memoryviews
>>>>>    - memoryview documentation
>>>>>    - more?
>>>>>
>>>>> We can then shortly-ish after release 0.17 with actual features (and
>>>>> new bugs, lets call those features too), depending on how many bugs
>>>>> are still found in 0.16.1.
>>>>
>>>> TBH, if we're actually close to a major release, the usefulness of a
>>>> bugfix release is imho not that great.
>>>
>>> There are some fixes to generators implementation that depend on
>>> "yield from" that can't be easily cherry-picked.
>>> So I think you're right about 0.17 release. But new features may
>>> introduce new bugs and we'll have to release 0.17.1 soon.
>>
>> If we're looking at doing 0.17 soon, lets just do that.
(Continue reading)

Stefan Behnel | 9 May 10:51 2012
Picon

Re: [Cython] 0.16.1

Stefan Behnel, 09.05.2012 08:41:
> Robert Bradshaw, 09.05.2012 00:16:
>> If we're looking at doing 0.17 soon, lets just do that.
> 
> I think it's close enough to be released. I'll try to get around to list
> the changes in the release notes (and maybe even add a note about alpha
> quality PyPy support to the docs), but I wouldn't mind if someone else was
> quicker, at least for a start. ;)

Well, here's a start:

http://wiki.cython.org/ReleaseNotes-0.17

Please add to it if you see anything missing.

Stefan
Stefan Behnel | 9 May 10:57 2012
Picon

Re: [Cython] 0.16.1

Stefan Behnel, 09.05.2012 10:51:
> Stefan Behnel, 09.05.2012 08:41:
>> Robert Bradshaw, 09.05.2012 00:16:
>>> If we're looking at doing 0.17 soon, lets just do that.
>>
>> I think it's close enough to be released. I'll try to get around to list
>> the changes in the release notes (and maybe even add a note about alpha
>> quality PyPy support to the docs), but I wouldn't mind if someone else was
>> quicker, at least for a start. ;)
> 
> Well, here's a start:
> 
> http://wiki.cython.org/ReleaseNotes-0.17

Oh, and I think this makes it pretty clear that this is a 0.17 and not a
0.16.1.

Stefan

Gmane