Hey folks,
We have accumulated a number of important bug fixes on the 1.5.x branch,
(soon including https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/5690 which
fixes a segfault when using pyside) so we should strongly consider doing a
1.5.1 release.
I do not think we need to do a rc cycle given the low-risk and so we can
get this out inside of the 2.0 mike-finds-all-the-rabbit-holes development
cycle.
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/matplotlib-devel/attachments/20151217/ccdb9c58/attachment.html>
If anything, the rc process is good for vetting the correctness of the
binary builds. We do conflate the beta and rc process to be the "rc
process", and I agree that we don't need a beta testing period for 1.5.1,
but an rc should still be done so that people can report issues with the
binary builds. Note, this can be very short (just a couple of days, really).
Ben Root
···
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Thomas Caswell <tcaswell at gmail.com> wrote:
Hey folks,
We have accumulated a number of important bug fixes on the 1.5.x branch,
(soon including Fix #5687: Don't pass unicode to QApplication() by pankajp · Pull Request #5690 · matplotlib/matplotlib · GitHub which
fixes a segfault when using pyside) so we should strongly consider doing a
1.5.1 release.
I do not think we need to do a rc cycle given the low-risk and so we can
get this out inside of the 2.0 mike-finds-all-the-rabbit-holes development
cycle.
Tom
_______________________________________________
Matplotlib-devel mailing list
Matplotlib-devel at python.org
Matplotlib-devel Info Page
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/matplotlib-devel/attachments/20151217/b9058c3b/attachment.html>