Skip to content

Release of version 0.19.1 #9607

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 0 commits into from
Oct 21, 2017
Merged

Release of version 0.19.1 #9607

merged 0 commits into from
Oct 21, 2017

Conversation

jnothman
Copy link
Member

For merging to 0.19.X upon release.

@jnothman
Copy link
Member Author

Is it controversial to include check_memory in this otherwise-bug-fix release?

@amueller
Copy link
Member

I'm fine with including it. It could be considered a bugfix.

@lesteve
Copy link
Member

lesteve commented Aug 30, 2017

Is it controversial to include check_memory in this otherwise-bug-fix release?

Fine with me. You may want to add #9649 when/if it gets merged.

@lesteve
Copy link
Member

lesteve commented Sep 4, 2017

Probably this would be good to add #9683, so that we ensure that 0.19.1 will pass the tests with the next numpy release.

@lesteve
Copy link
Member

lesteve commented Sep 12, 2017

I think this would be great to add #9670 which makes the nose dependency optional.

@jnothman
Copy link
Member Author

jnothman commented Sep 12, 2017 via email

@lesteve
Copy link
Member

lesteve commented Sep 12, 2017

@lesteve for the benefit of contrib developers?

Exactly, for example imbalanced-learn has moved to pytest for running the tests but currently still has a dependency on nose, which #9670 will remove.

@jnothman
Copy link
Member Author

Done

@amueller
Copy link
Member

sweet :)

@amueller
Copy link
Member

Circle fails?

Exception occurred:
  File "/home/ubuntu/scikit-learn/doc/sphinxext/sphinx_gallery/gen_gallery.py", line 280, in sumarize_failing_examples
    "\n" + "-" * 79)
ValueError: Here is a summary of the problems encountered when running the examples

Unexpected failing examples:
/home/ubuntu/scikit-learn/examples/applications/plot_stock_market.py failed leaving traceback:
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/ubuntu/scikit-learn/doc/sphinxext/sphinx_gallery/gen_rst.py", line 472, in execute_code_block
    exec(code_block, example_globals)
  File "<string>", line 135, in <module>
  File "<string>", line 135, in <listcomp>
  File "<string>", line 24, in wrapper
  File "<string>", line 64, in quotes_historical_google
  File "/home/ubuntu/miniconda/envs/testenv/lib/python3.6/site-packages/numpy/lib/npyio.py", line 1775, in genfromtxt
    converters[i].update(conv, locked=True,
IndexError: list index out of range

@amueller
Copy link
Member

Oh is that the google stock retry thing?

@jnothman
Copy link
Member Author

It is, though the retry is included in 0.19.1....

@lesteve
Copy link
Member

lesteve commented Sep 29, 2017

I pushed a fix for numpy dev (test only) and the whole Google finance commit saga, hoping that it will make Circle pass.

@lesteve
Copy link
Member

lesteve commented Sep 29, 2017

And of course, now the conda update saga strikes again ...

@amueller
Copy link
Member

the pleasures of CI....

@lesteve
Copy link
Member

lesteve commented Oct 3, 2017

Thanks for adding #9623! About whats_new, I was thinking, given the reorganisation in separate files in master, that it is simpler to add the whats_new entries in this PR (rather than in each separate PR), and once 0.19.1 is released to update v0.19.rst in master.

@jnothman
Copy link
Member Author

jnothman commented Oct 3, 2017 via email

@jnothman
Copy link
Member Author

jnothman commented Oct 9, 2017

Btw, @lesteve, one approach is to release this, then merge the entire branch into master, just to be sure nothing is missed from master.

@lesteve lesteve added this to the 0.19.1 milestone Oct 17, 2017
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 18, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #9607 into 0.19.X will increase coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 89.05%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           0.19.X    #9607      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.17%   96.17%   +<.01%     
==========================================
  Files         335      335              
  Lines       61873    62117     +244     
==========================================
+ Hits        59504    59744     +240     
- Misses       2369     2373       +4
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
sklearn/decomposition/incremental_pca.py 100% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
sklearn/cluster/dbscan_.py 100% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
sklearn/decomposition/dict_learning.py 93.23% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
sklearn/cluster/birch.py 99.56% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
sklearn/decomposition/online_lda.py 100% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
sklearn/cluster/spectral.py 94.05% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
sklearn/decomposition/pca.py 94.52% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
sklearn/manifold/mds.py 84.46% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
sklearn/gaussian_process/gaussian_process.py 74.4% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
sklearn/manifold/spectral_embedding_.py 84.96% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
... and 53 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ef5cb84...063eb15. Read the comment docs.

@jnothman
Copy link
Member Author

Except for #9593 (cross_val_predict binary decision_function etc) and #9950 (docs for "good first issue" label), I feel this is ready. I have pre-emptively added what's new for #9593. A double-check would be welcome, @lesteve, @amueller, @ogrisel, @agramfort, @TomDLT...

@TomDLT
Copy link
Member

TomDLT commented Oct 19, 2017

#9932 is missing

@amueller
Copy link
Member

merged #9593

@amueller
Copy link
Member

(not cherry picked, though. Can you cherry pick, I'll try to check the PR).

@jnothman
Copy link
Member Author

Ready to merge and upload when you are, @amueller.

Copy link
Member

@qinhanmin2014 qinhanmin2014 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

PEP8 error for your reference, also, Reiichiro Nakano (#9593) seems missing from contributors.

@@ -16,12 +16,15 @@
from sklearn.utils.testing import assert_almost_equal
from sklearn.utils.testing import assert_raises
from sklearn.utils.testing import assert_raise_message
from sklearn.utils.testing import assert_warns_message
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

duplicate import, remove either one

from sklearn.utils.testing import assert_raises_regex
from sklearn.utils.testing import assert_greater
from sklearn.utils.testing import assert_less
from sklearn.utils.testing import assert_array_almost_equal
from sklearn.utils.testing import assert_array_equal
from sklearn.utils.testing import assert_warns
from sklearn.utils.testing import assert_warns_message
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

duplicate import, remove either one

@jnothman
Copy link
Member Author

Thank you!!

@amueller
Copy link
Member

Ok I'll look and merge and release tomorrow. Deal?

@amueller
Copy link
Member

amueller commented Oct 20, 2017

How about #9635, #8742, #7373, #9897? not regression but potentially important bug fixes.

@amueller
Copy link
Member

I pushed some more documentation fixes to your branch. let me know if you disagree with any of them. Apart from what I mentioned above, it looks pretty complete. I'll double check tomorrow that there's nothing in there that we don't want.

@jnothman
Copy link
Member Author

jnothman commented Oct 21, 2017 via email

@jnothman
Copy link
Member Author

I've included #7373, #9897. Personally, I'd rather leave #9635, #8742 behind.

@jnothman
Copy link
Member Author

merge at will.

@amueller
Copy link
Member

ok cool! I think I agree with your assessment about the other bug fixes.

@amueller
Copy link
Member

hm contributions are sorted by commits not alphabetically, though it looks like we did the same for 0.19. I kind preferred alphabetically but I don't mind enough to change it ;)

@amueller
Copy link
Member

amueller commented Oct 21, 2017

hm pulling ndcg and dcg is a breaking change between 0.19 and 0.19.1, right? That doesn't seem very nice? Shouldn't we deprecate and warn?

@amueller
Copy link
Member

Lol have to merge manually to avoid squashing. I'm doing that now and tagging. I'd appreciate a summary of why removing these scores is ok, but I expect you and @agramfort thought this through.

@amueller amueller merged commit 0e1d261 into scikit-learn:0.19.X Oct 21, 2017
@amueller
Copy link
Member

@amueller
Copy link
Member

hm my internet is kinda dead. if anyone wants to do conda-forge, please go ahead.

@amueller
Copy link
Member

Not sure if this is right conda-forge/scikit-learn-feedstock#60

@amueller
Copy link
Member

also see ContinuumIO/anaconda-issues#6809

@jnothman
Copy link
Member Author

jnothman commented Oct 22, 2017 via email

@jnothman
Copy link
Member Author

jnothman commented Oct 22, 2017 via email

@amueller
Copy link
Member

When we removed the commit counts I wanted to do alphabetical. Need to push the wheels to pypi, rest looks done. Will to tomorrow morning.

@jnothman
Copy link
Member Author

jnothman commented Oct 23, 2017 via email

@lesteve
Copy link
Member

lesteve commented Nov 8, 2017

Hmmm it looks like the nose hard dependency removal is not part of 0.19.1 😕 ... I am pretty sure I checked at one point and #9607 (comment) seems to say the same thing. It's weird also I am not able to see the diff or commit of this PR ...

@jnothman
Copy link
Member Author

jnothman commented Nov 8, 2017

Sorry. I'm not sure how that happened. Well, I guess we'd better document it in what's new for 0.20.

@lesteve
Copy link
Member

lesteve commented Nov 8, 2017

Oh well ... maybe something to keep in mind if there is a 0.19.2.

@jakirkham
Copy link
Contributor

Should the associated milestone be closed?

@lesteve
Copy link
Member

lesteve commented Jun 25, 2018

Thanks, I closed the 0.19.1 milestone.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants