Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipe) and found it was in an excellent condition.

Hmmm the commit message is slightly misleading because that was when I still thought that the tests were failing only on OSX. Please edit it if you use "squash and merge" ...

Alternatively I could amend the commit but I would rather wait to make sure that the CI are green before doing so.

Just for the record, the CIs are green Circle Travis.

I am going to amend the commit message and force push.

Eventhough I not fully agree on not patching a known resolved bug, I think this should go in. Maintainers ?

We need another PR like this for branch master_np1.11. So we can build it against NumPy 1.11.

We need another PR like this for branch master_np1.11. So we can build it against NumPy 1.11.

Done in #41.

Thanks.

@jschueller I don't want to insist on this too much, but you are doing exactly that. There are many known fixed bugs in master, and trying to patch them here will probably lead to more bugs given the intricacies of the codebase and interdependencies. So you're patching one of them selectively. Alright. Why this one and not the rest?

@amueller because this one messes with the unit tests that are run during the package build : if I were to patch I'd prefer to actually fixing the bug if possible instead of creating patching to skip it (and that's less work as the patch already exists). Again, I'm also fine with skipping them, that's just not how I usually do things.

It's probably fine to path it, but it's still not as clear-cut.

Can someone with the necessary rights please merge this one as well as #41? From the recipe, I am guessing that @amueller and @ogrisel have the necessary rights. If not @jakirkham maybe?

FYI you should get rights to this repo in ~24hrs (or less) @lesteve. If you don't, please ping core.

Thanks @amueller for merging this one!

FYI you should get rights to this repo in ~24hrs (or less) @lesteve. If you don't, please ping core.

Good to know, thanks @jakirkham.

To put things in perspective w.r.t. releases and patching, I think the real issue that we are running into is not so much which kind of patches we use, but that we are now left to do this after the release has occurred. Maybe we should be doing some more rcs here so we can also see if a build is going to work at conda-forge in addition to allowing downstream users try out new features in scikit-learn. We do have branches setup for this very process. I don't know if this is something you would be open to trying for patch releases. Just something to think about (especially with 0.19 around the corner).

Doing RCs with conda-forge would be really really good.
I'm not sure how close around the corner 0.19 is given how busy Joel and me are right now, but it is something we should do most certainly.

Maybe we should be doing some more rcs here so we can also see if a build is going to work at conda-forge in addition to allowing downstream users try out new features in scikit-learn.

Completely agree with this as I commented elsewhere and we will do our best to do this for the 0.19 release.

FYI you should get rights to this repo in ~24hrs (or less) @lesteve. If you don't, please ping core.

@conda-forge/core for some reason it does not look like I have the rights on this repo although I was added to the recipe maintainers. Let me know if there is something I need to do.

The team update script has been super flaky of late. Mainly a consequence of growing pains. Restarted it to see if we can get all the way through to scikit-learn (was getting rate limited by GitHub before that).

When I have some more time, I'm planning on replacing it with a web service. That should scale better with our demands, provide better feedback to end users, run more quickly, and be less vulnerable. Was able to add the needed features to conda-smithy and test them. Just need the time to write a web service around it.

xref: conda-forge/conda-forge-webservices#63

OK thanks a lot @jakirkham for the details! For completeness there is no hurry, I just happened to check today whether I had the rights.

Thanks for understanding @lesteve. If it comes to it, I can always add you manually. Though I'm hoping we can fix the tooling first.