pandas 1.5 -> 2.1?
Hi Rebecca, Julian and all science minded pythonistas of debian, great and small!
I like your correspondence about upgrading from
version 1.5 of pandas to 2.1.
It's open, scientific and explores the ideal of
proceeding wisely in a matter of public interest.
My humble thoughts are:
1.) Rebecca: *Why* did you write that you'd like
to move forward with the pandas 1.5 -> 2.1
transition? What's your reason?
2.) What may be the advantage of migrating to
version 3.0 of Cython?
3.) The following one-liner suggests 44 debian
packages might be affected by the breaks
Rebecca said would be caused by pandas 2.x:
$ for s in augur cnvkit dyda emperor esda mirtop pymatgen pyranges python-anndata python-biom-format python-cooler python-nanoget python-skbio python-ulmo q2-quality-control q2-demux q2-taxa q2-types q2templates sklearn-pandas ; do apt-cache search "$s" ; done | less
4.) The break that worries me the most is
sklearn-pandas, because it seems to me that
sklearn is
popular and
fundamental.
Comment welcome,
Kingsley
On 12/10/2023 20:16, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 01:06:01PM +0000, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
> > I'd like to move forward with the pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 transition reasonably
> > soon.
> >
> > Given that pandas 2.x is *not* required for Python 3.12 (but is required for
> > Cython 3.0), should we wait for the Python 3.12 transition to be done first?
>
> Well, I have seen at least one package that has an RC bug for the
> Python 3.12 transition that might be because it's still using an old
> version of cython3 :( So it's a bit of chicken-and-egg - having Cython
> 3.0 might be very helpful. But then there is this list of 28 packages
> broken by pandas 2.x. On the other hand, these will need fixing at
> some point soon anyway, so I'd be in favour of doing the pandas
> transition now, which will allow Cython 3.0 to move into unstable.
>
> Just my 2 cents' worth...
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Julian
>
--
Time is the fire in which we all burn.
Reply to: