matplotlib-devel Mailing List for matplotlib

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Michael Droettboom <md...@st...> wrote:
> As many of you are well aware, John Hunter has been the sole copyright
> holder on matplotlib from the beginning. I'm sorry it's taken nearly a year
> to do this (as can often happen in sad situations like this), but I think we
> do need to address it going forward.
>
> I have a PR for this change in #2195.
>
> Heavily influenced by the IPython licensing, I propose to move us to a
> shared copyright model, where authors retain copyright on their individual
> contributions, but the code base as a whole belongs to the entire community
> of contributors. This does not actually change the license from the BSD one
> that we have had all along, so should have no impact on its usability in or
> with other projects. I feel pretty strongly that this is the right
> direction, as it reflects that matplotlib was and is a community project.
> (And just to be clear, this is in no way an attempt to reduce John's credit
> for the amazing work that he began).
+1
Not that I have any right to speak for him, but I suspect/imagine that
he would have been totally on board with this plan, and I wouldn't be
surprised if the fact that it hadn't happened before wasn't simply an
oversight.
Very happy to see you take this step, I think it's the right approach.
Cheers,
f

As many of you are well aware, John Hunter has been the sole copyright 
holder on matplotlib from the beginning. I'm sorry it's taken nearly a 
year to do this (as can often happen in sad situations like this), but I 
think we do need to address it going forward.
I have a PR for this change in #2195.
Heavily influenced by the IPython licensing, I propose to move us to a 
shared copyright model, where authors retain copyright on their 
individual contributions, but the code base as a whole belongs to the 
entire community of contributors. This does not actually change the 
license from the BSD one that we have had all along, so should have no 
impact on its usability in or with other projects. I feel pretty 
strongly that this is the right direction, as it reflects that 
matplotlib was and is a community project. (And just to be clear, this 
is in no way an attempt to reduce John's credit for the amazing work 
that he began).
I hope this will be noncontroversial, but I'm always wary of starting 
legal discussions on a mailing list.
Mike

Thanks, Christoph. Humming along just fine now.
-p
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Christoph Gohlke <cg...@uc...> wrote:
> The official release candidate binaries include all the test data. The
> final binaries and the ones on my site do not because of the ~30 MB
> overhead.
>
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/matplotlib/files/matplotlib/matplotlib-1.3.0rc4/
>
> Christoph
>
>
> On 7/2/2013 11:04 AM, Paul Hobson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Michael Droettboom <md...@st...
> > <mailto:md...@st...>> wrote:
> >
> > I have made a new release candidate (1.3.0rc4) that fixes the
> > following vs. 1.3.0rc3:
> >
> > - It doesn't add a setup.cfg file to the tarball
> >
> > - It doesn't install the KnownFailure nose plugin as a pkg_resources
> > entry_point (this conflicted with IPython's plugin of the same name)
> >
> > - We get a known failure from the pep8 test if pep8 isn't installed
> >
> > Hopefully that's enough to get to the point of giving this release
> > candidate some wider exposure before putting out a final release. We
> > can use some sprint time at Scipy to get this release polished if
> > desired and necessary, too.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > I just downloaded the RC4 Gohlke binary for 64-bit Python 3.3, and the
> > test suite is blowing up. Mostly related to the baseline images not
> > being included. Is there a trick to get the test suite to meaningfully
> > run on Windows? The test suite for Python 2.7.5 (via Anaconda) went
> > relevatively well(1 failure + 1 error, I think).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -paul
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
> >
> > Build for Windows Store.
> >
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> > Mat...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> Mat...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
>

The official release candidate binaries include all the test data. The 
final binaries and the ones on my site do not because of the ~30 MB 
overhead.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/matplotlib/files/matplotlib/matplotlib-1.3.0rc4/
Christoph
On 7/2/2013 11:04 AM, Paul Hobson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Michael Droettboom <md...@st...
> <mailto:md...@st...>> wrote:
>
> I have made a new release candidate (1.3.0rc4) that fixes the
> following vs. 1.3.0rc3:
>
> - It doesn't add a setup.cfg file to the tarball
>
> - It doesn't install the KnownFailure nose plugin as a pkg_resources
> entry_point (this conflicted with IPython's plugin of the same name)
>
> - We get a known failure from the pep8 test if pep8 isn't installed
>
> Hopefully that's enough to get to the point of giving this release
> candidate some wider exposure before putting out a final release. We
> can use some sprint time at Scipy to get this release polished if
> desired and necessary, too.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Hey folks,
>
> I just downloaded the RC4 Gohlke binary for 64-bit Python 3.3, and the
> test suite is blowing up. Mostly related to the baseline images not
> being included. Is there a trick to get the test suite to meaningfully
> run on Windows? The test suite for Python 2.7.5 (via Anaconda) went
> relevatively well(1 failure + 1 error, I think).
>
> Thanks,
> -paul
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> Mat...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
>

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Michael Droettboom <md...@st...>wrote:
> I have made a new release candidate (1.3.0rc4) that fixes the following
> vs. 1.3.0rc3:
>
> - It doesn't add a setup.cfg file to the tarball
>
> - It doesn't install the KnownFailure nose plugin as a pkg_resources
> entry_point (this conflicted with IPython's plugin of the same name)
>
> - We get a known failure from the pep8 test if pep8 isn't installed
>
> Hopefully that's enough to get to the point of giving this release
> candidate some wider exposure before putting out a final release. We can
> use some sprint time at Scipy to get this release polished if desired and
> necessary, too.
>
> Mike
>
Hey folks,
I just downloaded the RC4 Gohlke binary for 64-bit Python 3.3, and the test
suite is blowing up. Mostly related to the baseline images not being
included. Is there a trick to get the test suite to meaningfully run on
Windows? The test suite for Python 2.7.5 (via Anaconda) went relevatively
well(1 failure + 1 error, I think).
Thanks,
-paul

[Apologies for cross-posting]
The matplotlib developers want to hear from you!
We are conducting a user survey to determine how and where matplotlib is 
being used in order to focus its further development.
This should only take a couple of minutes. To fill it out, visit:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?fromEmail=true&formkey=dHpQS25pcTZIRWdqX0pNckNSU01sMHc6MQ 
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?fromEmail=true&formkey=dHpQS25pcTZIRWdqX0pNckNSU01sMHc6MQ>
Please forward to your colleagues, particularly those who don't read 
these mailing lists.
Cheers,
Michael Droettboom, and the matplotlib team

Hi all,
after John's untimely passing we had a memorial service in Chicago,
but only a few on these lists were able to attend. At last week's
scipy conference I read a slightly edited version of the eulogy from
that memorial service, and I figured some of you might be interested
if you missed the conference:
http://blog.fperez.org/2013/07/in-memoriam-john-d-hunter-iii-1968-2012.html
Cheers,
f
--
Fernando Perez (@fperez_org; http://fperez.org)
fperez.net-at-gmail: mailing lists only (I ignore this when swamped!)
fernando.perez-at-berkeley: contact me here for any direct mail