Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #15341

Bug#1043240: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1?

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Hi Rebecca, Julian and all science minded pythonistas of debian, great and small!

I like your correspondence about upgrading from
version 1.5 of pandas to 2.1.

It's open, scientific and explores the ideal of
proceeding wisely in a matter of public interest.

My humble thoughts are:

1.) Rebecca: *Why* did you write that you'd like
    to move forward with the pandas 1.5 -> 2.1
    transition? What's your reason?

2.) What may be the advantage of migrating to
    version 3.0 of Cython?

3.) The following one-liner suggests 44 debian
    packages might be affected by the breaks
    Rebecca said would be caused by pandas 2.x:

    $ for s in augur cnvkit dyda emperor esda mirtop pymatgen pyranges python-anndata python-biom-format python-cooler python-nanoget python-skbio python-ulmo q2-quality-control q2-demux q2-taxa q2-types q2templates sklearn-pandas ; do apt-cache search "$s" ; done | less

4.) The break that worries me the most is
    sklearn-pandas, because it seems to me that
    sklearn is 

        popular and 

        fundamental.

Comment welcome,
Kingsley

On 12/10/2023 20:16, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 01:06:01PM +0000, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
> > I'd like to move forward with the pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 transition reasonably
> > soon.
> > 
> > Given that pandas 2.x is *not* required for Python 3.12 (but is required for
> > Cython 3.0), should we wait for the Python 3.12 transition to be done first?
> 
> Well, I have seen at least one package that has an RC bug for the
> Python 3.12 transition that might be because it's still using an old
> version of cython3 :(  So it's a bit of chicken-and-egg - having Cython
> 3.0 might be very helpful.  But then there is this list of 28 packages
> broken by pandas 2.x.  On the other hand, these will need fixing at
> some point soon anyway, so I'd be in favour of doing the pandas
> transition now, which will allow Cython 3.0 to move into unstable.
> 
> Just my 2 cents' worth...
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
>    Julian
> 

-- 
Time is the fire in which we all burn.

Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Bug#1043240: transition: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 "Rebecca N. Palmer" <rebecca_palmer@zoho.com> - 2023-12-10 14:30 +0100
  Bug#1043240: transition: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2023-12-10 21:30 +0100
    Bug#1043240: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1? "Kingsley G. Morse Jr." <kingsley@loaner.com> - 2023-12-10 22:10 +0100
      Bug#1043240: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1? Drew Parsons <dparsons@debian.org> - 2023-12-11 00:40 +0100
      Bug#1043240: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1? Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2023-12-11 11:10 +0100
  Bug#1043240: transition: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2023-12-11 08:20 +0100
    Bug#1043240: transition: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2023-12-11 18:40 +0100
  Bug#1043240: transition: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 "Rebecca N. Palmer" <rebecca_palmer@zoho.com> - 2024-01-21 16:40 +0100
    Bug#1043240: transition: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-01-21 19:40 +0100
      Bug#1043240: transition: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 Stelios Moschos <stel.moschos@gmail.com> - 2024-01-21 20:40 +0100
    Bug#1043240: transition: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2024-01-22 13:20 +0100
      Bug#1043240: transition: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 "Rebecca N. Palmer" <rebecca_palmer@zoho.com> - 2024-01-22 22:00 +0100
        Bug#1043240: transition: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2024-01-23 13:40 +0100
          Bug#1043240: transition: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 Graham Inggs <ginggs@debian.org> - 2024-01-26 07:50 +0100
            Bug#1043240: transition: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2024-01-26 08:40 +0100

csiph-web