Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net>
Newsgroups: linux.debian.bugs.dist,linux.debian.maint.python
Subject: Bug#999415: transition: pandas 1.1 -> 1.3 - to unstable now or not?
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 23:10:01 +0100
Message-ID: <DoAnf-KX-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <Di1sd-7oM-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <Di1sd-7oM-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <Di1sd-7oM-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <DlOG6-7Ii-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <DlSTn-1Si-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <DlXq1-4iS-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <DmpPk-4DD-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <DnPRn-6Hv-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <DoxSq-7RP-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <Di1sd-7oM-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <DoxSq-7RP-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-bugs-dist-request@lists.debian.org  Sun Nov 28 22:03:13 2021
Old-Return-Path: <debbugs@buxtehude.debian.org>
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.751
Reply-To: Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net>, 999415@bugs.debian.org
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-Cc: Debian Science Team <debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
X-Debian-Pr-Message: followup 999415
X-Debian-Pr-Package: src:pandas
X-Debian-Pr-Source: pandas
X-X-Sender: talbert@bear.techie.net
User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Greylist: delayed 611 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at buxtehude; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 22:00:57 UTC
X-Debian-Message: from BTS
X-Mailing-List: <debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/1693116
List-ID: <debian-bugs-dist.lists.debian.org>
List-URL: <https://lists.debian.org/debian-bugs-dist/>
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 18
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
X-Original-Cc: 999415@bugs.debian.org, Debian Science List <debian-science@lists.debian.org>, debian-python@lists.debian.org
X-Original-Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:50:43 -0500 (EST)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2111281649360.322783@bear.techie.net>
X-Original-References: <YYv921oVEMm+s0Qm@an3as.eu> <c06879b7-a7a4-61e2-d229-3675f166c9ed@zoho.com> <c06879b7-a7a4-61e2-d229-3675f166c9ed@zoho.com> <CAM8zJQtxWuL1BGrH5xsJPysdhJRt4qNFxQiOQ0a3xW54enNSgg@mail.gmail.com> <d8316dd8-85ac-53f1-fccc-df21a442bbb8@zoho.com> <61874db3-3f9d-cdc6-8acc-821d148d12a6@zoho.com> <1f952bf8-8eb9-e810-5ac9-bd9ba891a170@zoho.com> <5f975766-b826-c686-9a77-88ddbb20a5cd@zoho.com> <de0c5d4b-8be1-6e77-2e04-e3cd8a49fed6@zoho.com> <c06879b7-a7a4-61e2-d229-3675f166c9ed@zoho.com> <de0c5d4b-8be1-6e77-2e04-e3cd8a49fed6@zoho.com>
Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.bugs.dist:1083430 linux.debian.maint.python:13739

On Sun, 28 Nov 2021, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:

> After build-testing about half of the reverse dependencies, failures that 
> look new-pandas-related are cfgrib #1000726, joypy #1000727, python-skbio 
> #1000752, and maybe hyperspy (not filed yet).
>
> python-skbio and hyperspy already FTBFS for unrelated reasons (but fail more 
> tests with new pandas), and joypy looks trivially fixable.
>
> Given this and expecting to find a similar number in the other half, against 
> pandas 1.3 working on python3.10 while 1.1 doesn't (#1000422), would you 
> prefer to have pandas 1.3 in unstable now, or not?

My vote would be: go for it, but then again, I don't maintain any of 
pandas BDs.

Thanks,
Scott