Backport PR #27631 on branch 0.25.x (BUG: raise when wrong level name is passed to "unstack")
Backport PR #27631: BUG: raise when wrong level name is passed to "unstack"
@jreback @TomAugspurger @toobaz: Is there a reason for back-porting this?  The bug that was being addressed was more than two years old. The only reason I can think of is "this is a very simple patch". But definitely not urgent. (Oh, and: over time, backporting patches might be easier if we do it routinely, so the code is more similar. But I have no idea of whether we have any general rule) Yeah, simple bug fixes are (IMO) fine to backport. It's relatively painless
these days.

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 5:57 AM Pietro Battiston <notifications@github.com>
wrote:

> (Oh, and: over time, backporting patches might be easier if we do it
> routinely, so the code is more similar. But I have no idea of whether we
> have any general rule)
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/27640?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAKAOIUPDATECJJK7YF2IH3QCANALA5CNFSM4IHULDA2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD3DS7SA#issuecomment-516370376>,
> or mute the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAKAOIXN2K2QQYIV2L7EX43QCANALANCNFSM4IHULDAQ>
> .
>
 yeah this was fine (and note already was for 0.25.1) > Yeah, simple bug fixes are (IMO) fine to backport. It's relatively painless
these days.

But note that we should still be careful, and not just backport any bug fix. It happens regularly that a bug fix causes a new bug. > But note that we should still be careful, and not just backport any bug fix. It happens regularly that a bug fix causes a new bug.

I agree, but in general should this be a stopper? I mean: do we consider regressions in 0.25.* more problematic than regressions in 1.*? > do we consider regressions in 0.25.* more problematic than regressions in 1.*?

Yes, we do (IMO). People should more or less be able to carelessly update 0.25.0 to 0.25.1 while updating a x.y to x.y+1 always should be done carefully (as there can always be API breakages anyway). > Yes, we do (IMO). People should more or less be able to carelessly update 0.25.0 to 0.25.1 while updating a x.y to x.y+1

Right, I missed that, I had just in mind the comparison between 0.25.0->0.25.1 and, say, 1.0.0->1.0.1.