Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: "Rebecca N. Palmer" 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 20:20:02 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-bugs-dist-request@lists.debian.org Sun Nov 28 19:15:09 2021 Old-Return-Path: X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.5 Reply-To: "Rebecca N. Palmer" , 999415@bugs.debian.org Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org Resent-Cc: Debian Science Team X-Debian-Pr-Message: followup 999415 X-Debian-Pr-Package: src:pandas X-Debian-Pr-Source: pandas Arc-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1638126749; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=DM39pi4LCGQNA4A2f0F+4Id7464TkH1S7r6VUnfgYCdJCR18LWs0vLm9+DxKoOOHlYhSh/LizM55Dnf7t7mU0aJHNNGnnmBm7rA1vK4BhdJQDT0xzvzMiDzDBmX1uObwsdKqVbxieYEBAbzJdmUfwrilumkBSXAlqUm6iXNPVp8= Arc-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1638126749; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To; bh=u+XH+u5R0gSbA4L/GO7EdAJG5J9f5PFZmgv1N8i1g+c=; b=cAAihHSmdD+aqFknttFNJ7/L+7N9k57frqO9ANA+sGoMwh6z4DhwXEg7fnApHgO/kRgQZMALzHhgikwpMO1sV/K175wRFQRusiG+sDH3tCyWt7HCxl7U4tjXjjKYB6pgCAq7+JOS8NM+9MkC5HCe+DkDMeS90Z4StrsQROVKJhE= Arc-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=zoho.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rebecca_palmer@zoho.com; dmarc=pass header.from= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Zohomailclient: External X-Debian-Message: from BTS X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1693074 List-ID: List-URL: Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 10 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 19:12:18 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-References: <61874db3-3f9d-cdc6-8acc-821d148d12a6@zoho.com> <1f952bf8-8eb9-e810-5ac9-bd9ba891a170@zoho.com> <5f975766-b826-c686-9a77-88ddbb20a5cd@zoho.com> <5f975766-b826-c686-9a77-88ddbb20a5cd@zoho.com> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.bugs.dist:1083398 linux.debian.maint.python:13738 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?