You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Not strictly "new", but how about adding: "With some small bug fixes, the precision of Time conversions has increased to the level that it is being used for pulsar timing (#1929, #1939; https://github.com/nanograv/PINT)" (fine to omit the URL).
In trying to get 0.4 iissues out of the way: for this list, #1968 seems to be done, while I would argue modeling should be done for 1.0. So, what really would seem to remain is to add text about APE5 (and perhaps my time sentence)...
@taldcroft@astrofrog - actually, I'm going to try to do this right now (or possibly on the first leg of my flight before I leave the US). If you don't hear anything by the end of today, you can assume I missed a window, but I should be able to do it in the next few hours.
A few other things that we might want to add before the actual release:
Some kind of number for the number of bug fixes/PRs would be nice, like what ipython does, which I find is always an impressive showing to demonstrate how much has been improved.
@mhvk - are any of the Quantity changes worth highlighting? If it's mostly just bugs and "plumbing", it's probably not a big deal, but of course any publicity for Quantity is a good idea to me because I think it's a "killer feature" for us.
@embray - should the modeling changes be discussed? Or do you want to save that for the next version when it's a bit more complete?
I will try to add a note on the modeling changes. I think most of the changes are in areas that were not very utilized yet, but it's worth mentioning nonetheless.
@eteq - for Quantity, I think the speed-up was the most notable new thing. I would hold off on it until the next release, as by that time it will be much better integrated with other parts of astropy. Though... it does now interact well with Time and Coordinates, so maybe that's worth mentioning?
@mhvk - I think that's all worth mentioning, but not necessarily describing
in detail... Maybe a brief section that mentions that it has been sped up
and that it interacts better and also a link to the documentation.
Can you do a PR with that, or should I give it a shot, @mhvk?
@eteq - agreed that no detail is needed, it is just part of astropy becoming more integrated. If you can add a sentence, that would be great; if not, I do think a bigger section will be warranted for next time, when Table should also work well with quantities.
I don't actually want to add anything extensively on #1914 yet because although there are instructions for defining a custom fitter I still think it's too difficult to be ready for human consumption, and not something I want to advertise broadly.
Activity
mhvk commentedon May 2, 2014
Not strictly "new", but how about adding: "With some small bug fixes, the precision of
Timeconversions has increased to the level that it is being used for pulsar timing (#1929, #1939; https://github.com/nanograv/PINT)" (fine to omit the URL).eteq commentedon May 26, 2014
APE5 changes should be in there as a section.
mhvk commentedon Jun 17, 2014
In trying to get 0.4 iissues out of the way: for this list, #1968 seems to be done, while I would argue modeling should be done for 1.0. So, what really would seem to remain is to add text about APE5 (and perhaps my time sentence)...
astrofrog commentedon Jul 1, 2014
@taldcroft - since @eteq is traveling, would you be happy to write a what's new entry to show off the new coordinate stuff?
taldcroft commentedon Jul 1, 2014
@astrofrog - OK will do. I'll try to get this done today, but I assume this is not blocking RC1.
eteq commentedon Jul 1, 2014
@taldcroft @astrofrog - actually, I'm going to try to do this right now (or possibly on the first leg of my flight before I leave the US). If you don't hear anything by the end of today, you can assume I missed a window, but I should be able to do it in the next few hours.
astrofrog commentedon Jul 1, 2014
@eteq - ok, great! :)
@taldcroft - it's not holding up the RC1, but the sooner we do it, the better :)
taldcroft commentedon Jul 1, 2014
Sounds good. I'll be on standby if things don't work out.
eteq commentedon Jul 1, 2014
Alright, I just made a PR for coordinates.
A few other things that we might want to add before the actual release:
Quantitychanges worth highlighting? If it's mostly just bugs and "plumbing", it's probably not a big deal, but of course any publicity forQuantityis a good idea to me because I think it's a "killer feature" for us.modelingchanges be discussed? Or do you want to save that for the next version when it's a bit more complete?embray commentedon Jul 1, 2014
I will try to add a note on the modeling changes. I think most of the changes are in areas that were not very utilized yet, but it's worth mentioning nonetheless.
mhvk commentedon Jul 3, 2014
@eteq - for Quantity, I think the speed-up was the most notable new thing. I would hold off on it until the next release, as by that time it will be much better integrated with other parts of astropy. Though... it does now interact well with
TimeandCoordinates, so maybe that's worth mentioning?eteq commentedon Jul 4, 2014
@mhvk - I think that's all worth mentioning, but not necessarily describing
in detail... Maybe a brief section that mentions that it has been sped up
and that it interacts better and also a link to the documentation.
Can you do a PR with that, or should I give it a shot, @mhvk?
mhvk commentedon Jul 4, 2014
@eteq - agreed that no detail is needed, it is just part of astropy becoming more integrated. If you can add a sentence, that would be great; if not, I do think a bigger section will be warranted for next time, when Table should also work well with quantities.
eteq commentedon Jul 5, 2014
@embray - note that you might want to add the modeling changes stuff as a PR from #2694, depending on when it gets merged (to reduce conflicts)
embray commentedon Jul 5, 2014
I don't actually want to add anything extensively on #1914 yet because although there are instructions for defining a custom fitter I still think it's too difficult to be ready for human consumption, and not something I want to advertise broadly.