pandas-dev
PDEP-15: Reject PDEP-10
- [ ] closes #xxxx (Replace xxxx with the GitHub issue number)
- [ ] Tests added and passed if fixing a bug or adding a new feature
- [ ] All code checks passed.
- [ ] Added type annotations to new arguments/methods/functions.
- [ ] Added an entry in the latest
doc/source/whatsnew/vX.X.X.rstfile if fixing a bug or adding a new feature.
Just something quick and dirty I threw up that we should talk about tomorrow at the dev call.
Website preview of this PR available at: https://pandas.pydata.org/preview/pandas-dev/pandas/58623/
![github-actions[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
Did I miss an official vote on rejecting this? I am not sure yet that I would want to reject, and am still leaning towards keeping in spite of some negative feedback
Nope, just opening since I said I would in the discussion issue.
We'll still need a formal vote - I'm just kicking off the discussion here.
cc @pandas-dev/pandas-core @pandas-dev/pandas-triage
xref https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/issues/57073#issuecomment-2080683080 for context
As discussed in dev meeting on 5/8/24, suggestion is to do a new PDEP that reverts PDEP-10, and keeps any parts we want to keep.
I am not sure yet that I would want to reject, and am still leaning towards keeping in spite of some negative feedback
I'm now leaning towards approving the rejection. My approval of the original PDEP was based solely on improvements to default inference for other dtypes. Despite some recent comments about this, no discussion/clarification has followed on this topic. I'd need to see some positive evidence that the original PDEP-10 authors still intend to support delivering the promised enhancements in this area. Now that the implications of using pd.NA as a default has been discussed in more depth, I suspect that any improved inference would need a couple of dtype variants.
As discussed in dev meeting on 5/8/24, suggestion is to do a new PDEP that reverts PDEP-10, and keeps any parts we want to keep.
Yep, I'm planning on updating this current PR to do that, so if anyone has any objections or whatever, we can still discuss here.
Minor note - do we need to rename this PR? Right now PDEP-10 shows twice on the website
Yeah, I'll probably change the name to PDEP-15 once I get around to moving this to a separate PDEP (probably tomorrow).
I was travelling the past week, so didn't really have time then.
This pull request is stale because it has been open for thirty days with no activity. Please update and respond to this comment if you're still interested in working on this.
@lithomas1 I think you should update the PDEP based on comments from @WillAyd so we can move this forward and have a vote.
My vote on this will heavily depend if we can come to an agreement on PDEP 14
Thanks for the reminder, this slipped off my radar.
My vote on this will heavily depend if we can come to an agreement on PDEP 14
Yeah, ideally, we'd vote on these at the same time. I haven't been involved in maintenance for a while, so no idea how far along that one is.
Marking as draft as although I've pushed up another commit, I haven't fully finished and refined my thoughts yet.
I also need to fix the formatting issues in this PDEP.
@lithomas1 now that PDEP-14 is accepted, we don't need to require pyarrow for pandas 3.0, so we should resolve this PDEP and get a vote going.
I was out for the summer, but I think this PDEP should be updated such that all comments were addressed.