Hi As discussed recently I have a patch, see http://github.com/friedrichromstedt/matplotlib/commit/1ac794b362d143ac6a634b70993d950d8fe4adeb . I'd like to provide a patch in .patch format for this. But I don't know how to do this. Is it simply $git format-patch -1? The test suite passes except for some failures on my 10.6 Mac OS X with yesterday checked-out astraw github repo. I'll send them in another thread. Let's keep tidy :-) There's more than the symlog error mentioned by LittleBigBrain on my sys. The failures are identical with and without the patch. Opinions? I'm still hesitating to send this to -devel, because this list shall be better low-traffic I believe, but I think this one definitely is a devel email :-) Friedrich
2010年10月19日 Friedrich Romstedt <fri...@gm...>: > The test suite passes except for some failures on my 10.6 Mac OS X > with yesterday checked-out astraw github repo. I'll send them in > another thread. Let's keep tidy :-) There's more than the symlog > error mentioned by LittleBigBrain on my sys. > > The failures are identical with and without the patch. > > Opinions? There has been no response, so I'm resending together with the patch file. The patch is created by $ git format-patch -1 on my old git branch from that time, and can be reapplied by: $ patch -p1 <0001-Fixing-bug-in-mpl.cm.get_cmap.patch I cannot test it against recent svn because my gcc on Mac OS X went havoc after restoring the system from Time Machine (the HDD crashed). Does anybody know what to do when it cannot find even stdarg.h ???? That time the failures of the test suite did not increase by introducing the change. And it fixes LittleBigBrain's bug. Annotations from the git commit are in the patch file. I think it needs some thinking-through, although I did it carefully, to approve it. Btw what happened to the astraw github mirror? The latest commit on branch "trunk" is from November. Friedrich
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Friedrich Romstedt < fri...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Ben, > > nice to get a response. It's not an urgent patch, but should go in > somwhen (imo). If you could take it and verify that it breaks nothing > I would owe you a donut ;) > > Why OL? > > Here's the reference: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.matplotlib.general/25103 > Notice that in the email from 18 Oct 14:55, I gave the wrong branch on > GitHub, it's > https://github.com/friedrichromstedt/matplotlib/tree/friedrichromstedt-get_cmap > apparently (not "trunk" branch). > > Shall I add it to the bug tracker so that you can assign it maybe to > yourself? > > I long for a matplotlib GitHub repo ... You might use the GitHub > system to review the patch (it's more readable than a diff file I > guess). Here's the link: > > https://github.com/friedrichromstedt/matplotlib/commit/1ac794b362d143ac6a634b70993d950d8fe4adeb > . > > Feel free to go on-list, I did not snip away at your response so that > the on-list history will be complete. > > Friedrich > > 2011年1月6日 Benjamin Root <ben...@ou...>: > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Friedrich Romstedt > > <fri...@gm...> wrote: > >> > >> 2010年10月19日 Friedrich Romstedt <fri...@gm...>: > >> > The test suite passes except for some failures on my 10.6 Mac OS X > >> > with yesterday checked-out astraw github repo. I'll send them in > >> > another thread. Let's keep tidy :-) There's more than the symlog > >> > error mentioned by LittleBigBrain on my sys. > >> > > >> > The failures are identical with and without the patch. > >> > > >> > Opinions? > >> > >> There has been no response, so I'm resending together with the patch > >> file. The patch is created by $ git format-patch -1 on my old git > >> branch from that time, and can be reapplied by: > >> > >> $ patch -p1 <0001-Fixing-bug-in-mpl.cm.get_cmap.patch > >> > >> I cannot test it against recent svn because my gcc on Mac OS X went > >> havoc after restoring the system from Time Machine (the HDD crashed). > >> Does anybody know what to do when it cannot find even stdarg.h ???? > >> > >> That time the failures of the test suite did not increase by > >> introducing the change. And it fixes LittleBigBrain's bug. > >> > >> Annotations from the git commit are in the patch file. I think it > >> needs some thinking-through, although I did it carefully, to approve > >> it. > >> > >> Btw what happened to the astraw github mirror? The latest commit on > >> branch "trunk" is from November. > >> > >> Friedrich > >> > > > > Friedrich, > > > > I don't know why you haven't gotten a response on this. I have not > looked > > into it at all though. Is it a patch that needs to go into 1.0.1? If > so, I > > can make sure it gets there. > > > > Ben Root > The changes look ok to me so far. It looks to be mostly a re-organization of existing logic and some consolidation of code. My only concerns are the creation of two new functions. Besides the obvious issues with potential namespace collisions in other parts of the code that might do an 'from cm import *', my main issue is that these functions are probably really only meant for internal use and should probably start with an underscore. We can always un-underscore them in a later release... I will do a bit more testing to see if I can break it, but barring that, I will commit a slightly modified version of the patch later today. Ben Root P.S. - As for going off-list in my last email, that was an 'oops'.
2011年1月8日 Benjamin Root <ben...@ou...>: > The changes look ok to me so far. It looks to be mostly a re-organization > of existing logic and some consolidation of code. My only concerns are the > creation of two new functions. Besides the obvious issues with potential > namespace collisions in other parts of the code that might do an 'from cm > import *', my main issue is that these functions are probably really only > meant for internal use and should probably start with an underscore. We can > always un-underscore them in a later release... I agree on that the functions are kind of internal. Atm they do not reach their aim of generating cmaps from arbitrary specifications (generate_cmap can only handle known cmaps by name). It seems to me I was too fast and did not think it thoroughly through :-/. I'm not really satisfied with the current state of the patch with the informations you gave at hand. I wrote this patch as it is because I assumed functions like ``revcmap`` are supposed to stay backward-compatible. If backward compatibility isn't an issue for this functions, so why not going ahead and rewriting the functions so that they deliver some useful functionality instead of only helping functionality. And if there are non-public stuff functions remaining, we could place an __all__ at the top of the file, to prevent them being imported by ``from cm import *``. > I will do a bit more testing to see if I can break it, but barring that, I > will commit a slightly modified version of the patch later today. :-/ You are too fast for me. In fact I think this functions belong to colors.LinearSegmentedColormap. Reversing should be a method of that one, and they should accept directly all kind of specifications at initialisation time. So what parts should stay backwards compatible and which are we able to change? * Do we have to keep LinearSegmentedColormap.from_list() or should it be simply an alias for its __init__()? * What is the callable-functionality in cm.revcmap for? It can handle callable value items, but where's this used in mpl? * And, as said, do we have to keep this list-and-dicitionary mangling functions outside of LinearSegmentedColormap? I.e., can we replace it by reversing fully-fledged Colormaps, instead of reversing their tuple-or-dict specs? Friedrich
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Friedrich Romstedt < fri...@gm...> wrote: > 2011年1月8日 Benjamin Root <ben...@ou...>: > > The changes look ok to me so far. It looks to be mostly a > re-organization > > of existing logic and some consolidation of code. My only concerns are > the > > creation of two new functions. Besides the obvious issues with potential > > namespace collisions in other parts of the code that might do an 'from cm > > import *', my main issue is that these functions are probably really only > > meant for internal use and should probably start with an underscore. We > can > > always un-underscore them in a later release... > > I agree on that the functions are kind of internal. Atm they do not > reach their aim of generating cmaps from arbitrary specifications > (generate_cmap can only handle known cmaps by name). It seems to me I > was too fast and did not think it thoroughly through :-/. > > I'm not really satisfied with the current state of the patch with the > informations you gave at hand. I wrote this patch as it is because I > assumed functions like ``revcmap`` are supposed to stay > backward-compatible. > > Any existing function should remain backwards compatible, and so I have no intention of putting an underscore on that one. Only on the new ones. > If backward compatibility isn't an issue for this functions, so why > not going ahead and rewriting the functions so that they deliver some > useful functionality instead of only helping functionality. And if > there are non-public stuff functions remaining, we could place an > __all__ at the top of the file, to prevent them being imported by > ``from cm import *``. > > That might be a style issue that would be up to other maintainers. Personally, at the very least, any function that is meant to be internal should start with an underscore just to act as a flag to others. But then using the __all__ approach gives the added benefit of making the documentation cleaner. > > I will do a bit more testing to see if I can break it, but barring that, > I > > will commit a slightly modified version of the patch later today. > > :-/ You are too fast for me. > > Actually, I haven't committed anything yet. I have a bit of a backlog here... > In fact I think this functions belong to > colors.LinearSegmentedColormap. Reversing should be a method of that > one, and they should accept directly all kind of specifications at > initialisation time. > > Actually, I think it belongs down in Colormap. I don't see why this should be limited to just LinearSegmentedColormap. > So what parts should stay backwards compatible and which are we able to > change? > > * Do we have to keep LinearSegmentedColormap.from_list() or should it > be simply an alias for its __init__()? > * What is the callable-functionality in cm.revcmap for? It can > handle callable value items, but where's this used in mpl? > * And, as said, do we have to keep this list-and-dicitionary mangling > functions outside of LinearSegmentedColormap? I.e., can we replace it > by reversing fully-fledged Colormaps, instead of reversing their > tuple-or-dict specs? > > My feeling is that for the purposes of 1.0.1, what you put together is good (although with those new functions underscored). I will then merge that over to the development branch. In the development branch, we can then make any additional design changes. As far as the 1.0.1 release goes, there really shouldn't be any new functionalities, only bug fixes for existing code. Ben Root
On 01/10/2011 08:02 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: [...] > > My feeling is that for the purposes of 1.0.1, what you put together is > good (although with those new functions underscored). I will then merge > that over to the development branch. In the development branch, we can > then make any additional design changes. As far as the 1.0.1 release > goes, there really shouldn't be any new functionalities, only bug fixes > for existing code. Do you mean 1.0.2? John tagged 1.0.1 4 days ago, it is listed as available for download, and I see that a couple of Mac dmg versions were added within the last hour. Eric > > Ben Root
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Friedrich Romstedt < fri...@gm...> wrote: > 2011年1月8日 Benjamin Root <ben...@ou...>: > > The changes look ok to me so far. It looks to be mostly a > re-organization > > of existing logic and some consolidation of code. My only concerns are > the > > creation of two new functions. Besides the obvious issues with potential > > namespace collisions in other parts of the code that might do an 'from cm > > import *', my main issue is that these functions are probably really only > > meant for internal use and should probably start with an underscore. We > can > > always un-underscore them in a later release... > > I agree on that the functions are kind of internal. Atm they do not > reach their aim of generating cmaps from arbitrary specifications > (generate_cmap can only handle known cmaps by name). It seems to me I > was too fast and did not think it thoroughly through :-/. > > I'm not really satisfied with the current state of the patch with the > informations you gave at hand. I wrote this patch as it is because I > assumed functions like ``revcmap`` are supposed to stay > backward-compatible. > > If backward compatibility isn't an issue for this functions, so why > not going ahead and rewriting the functions so that they deliver some > useful functionality instead of only helping functionality. And if > there are non-public stuff functions remaining, we could place an > __all__ at the top of the file, to prevent them being imported by > ``from cm import *``. > > > I will do a bit more testing to see if I can break it, but barring that, > I > > will commit a slightly modified version of the patch later today. > > :-/ You are too fast for me. > > In fact I think this functions belong to > colors.LinearSegmentedColormap. Reversing should be a method of that > one, and they should accept directly all kind of specifications at > initialisation time. > > So what parts should stay backwards compatible and which are we able to > change? > > * Do we have to keep LinearSegmentedColormap.from_list() or should it > be simply an alias for its __init__()? > * What is the callable-functionality in cm.revcmap for? It can > handle callable value items, but where's this used in mpl? > * And, as said, do we have to keep this list-and-dicitionary mangling > functions outside of LinearSegmentedColormap? I.e., can we replace it > by reversing fully-fledged Colormaps, instead of reversing their > tuple-or-dict specs? > > Friedrich > Finally got around to committing this. I committed it to the maintenance branch in r8933 and merged into the development branch in r8934. Ben Root
2011年1月22日 Benjamin Root <ben...@ou...>: > Finally got around to committing this. I committed it to the maintenance > branch in r8933 and merged into the development branch in r8934. Okay, I agree on this, but I will work on it again once the git transition is complete, or similar. Thanks, Friedrich