Uploaded image for project: 'Request For Comments'
  1. Request For Comments
  2. RFC-379

Update minimum versions of numpy, astropy and matplotlib after v14.0 is released

    XMLWordPrintable

    Details

    • Type: RFC
    • Status: Implemented
    • Resolution: Done
    • Component/s: DM
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      We currently state that the minimum supported versions of numpy, astropy and matplotlib are 1.5.1, 1.1.1 and 1.5.1 respectively. Now that version 2.x of astropy and matplotlib packages are easily available, on pypi and conda, it would seem to be a good time to move our minimum versions after we release v14.0. numpy is currently at v1.13.

      As discussed in https://community.lsst.org/t/what-is-the-backward-compatiblity-requirement-on-astropy-and-matplotlib/2139 there are some features of these packages that would be useful, and it would allow us to remove the font cache hack we use in the build system to prevent race conditions.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

          is triggering

          Story - Created by Jira Software - do not edit or delete. Issue type for a user story. DM-11727 Update minimum versions of numpy, astropy and matplotlib after v14.0 is released

          • Done
          relates to

          RFC - An issue whose primary purpose is to advertise an intent and allow stakeholders to comment. RFC-382 Update minimum Python3 version to 3.6 after v14 is released

          • Implemented

          RFC - An issue whose primary purpose is to advertise an intent and allow stakeholders to comment. RFC-375 Change default python version in newinstall and lsstsw to Python3 for v14

          • Implemented

          RFC - An issue whose primary purpose is to advertise an intent and allow stakeholders to comment. RFC-584 New Conda environment for Science Pipelines

          • Implemented
          links to

          Web Link Community discussion

            Activity

            Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
            Hide
            Permalink
            ljones Lynne Jones added a comment -

            I think these would require an update to numpy as well .. and if not, well, numpy should be updated as well too please.

            Show
            ljones Lynne Jones added a comment - I think these would require an update to numpy as well .. and if not, well, numpy should be updated as well too please.
            Hide
            Permalink
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            Thanks. Yes, I will update the text.

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - Thanks. Yes, I will update the text.
            Hide
            Permalink
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment -

            +1million.

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - +1million.
            Hide
            Permalink
            ktl Kian-Tat Lim added a comment -

            OK by me.

            Show
            ktl Kian-Tat Lim added a comment - OK by me.
            Hide
            Permalink
            lauren Lauren MacArthur added a comment -

            +1

            Show
            lauren Lauren MacArthur added a comment - +1
            Hide
            Permalink
            wmwood-vasey Michael Wood-Vasey [X] (Inactive) added a comment -

            +1

            Show
            wmwood-vasey Michael Wood-Vasey [X] (Inactive) added a comment - +1
            Hide
            Permalink
            krughoff Simon Krughoff added a comment -

            +1

            Show
            krughoff Simon Krughoff added a comment - +1
            Hide
            Permalink
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            I'm totally happy with this RFC, but, as a part of the upgrade, can we ensure that these new minimum versions are what are actually being tested by Jenkins, and make sure it's encoded in policy that Jenkins must always test our minimum requirements? (This came up on the CLO thread linked.)

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - I'm totally happy with this RFC, but, as a part of the upgrade, can we ensure that these new minimum versions are what are actually being tested by Jenkins, and make sure it's encoded in policy that Jenkins must always test our minimum requirements? (This came up on the CLO thread linked.)
            Hide
            Permalink
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            As part of this, the pinned versions would move in the conda config files. That would probably involve changes to other versions. Jenkins always tests the pinned versions (if we are changing the pinning I also wonder if we should switch to py3.6 as part of this).

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - As part of this, the pinned versions would move in the conda config files. That would probably involve changes to other versions. Jenkins always tests the pinned versions (if we are changing the pinning I also wonder if we should switch to py3.6 as part of this).
            Hide
            Permalink
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - - edited

            My use of "encoded in policy" wasn't an accident: I don't want just to change pinned versions, I want it written down that the pinned versions must be these.

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - - edited My use of "encoded in policy" wasn't an accident: I don't want just to change pinned versions, I want it written down that the pinned versions must be these .
            Hide
            Permalink
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            Since we are updating all the pinned versions, shall we go to py3.6? Or are you worried that that would mean we wouldn't know if 3.5 works any longer? (can we drop 3.5?)

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - Since we are updating all the pinned versions, shall we go to py3.6? Or are you worried that that would mean we wouldn't know if 3.5 works any longer? (can we drop 3.5?)
            Hide
            Permalink
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            I personally have no problems with using 3.6 and dropping support for 3.5. However, I think that's a separate RFC (primarily so that it gets widely broadcast — we should give as many people as possible the chance to object, and just changing the title of this RFC won't get the word out as effectively).

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - I personally have no problems with using 3.6 and dropping support for 3.5. However, I think that's a separate RFC (primarily so that it gets widely broadcast — we should give as many people as possible the chance to object, and just changing the title of this RFC won't get the word out as effectively).
            Hide
            Permalink
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            No objections. We will move the minimum versions after v14 comes out.

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - No objections. We will move the minimum versions after v14 comes out.

              People

              Assignee:
              tjenness Tim Jenness
              Reporter:
              tjenness Tim Jenness
              Watchers:
              John Parejko, John Swinbank, Kian-Tat Lim, Lauren MacArthur, Lynne Jones, Michael Wood-Vasey [X] (Inactive), Simon Krughoff, Tim Jenness
              Votes:
              1 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              8 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:
                Planned End:

                  CI Builds

                  No builds found.