html_url,issue_url,id,node_id,user,created_at,updated_at,author_association,body,reactions,performed_via_github_app,issue
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/3041#issuecomment-511136084,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3041,511136084,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMTEzNjA4NA==,2783717,2019-07-13T16:38:14Z,2019-07-13T16:39:25Z,NONE,">  Apparently in CPython this happens if you have a reference cycle.

AFAIK this is no longer true after Python 3.4.

I took a look with @delandmeterp and found that manually adding a `gc.collect()` (which collects all cycles) after deleting `temp` fixes the issue. The cycle was keeping the object around longer than expected, resulting in the lock error. It's not clear to me where the cycle is coming from (I'm not familiar with xarray internals), but this is indeed the issue.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,460254571
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/1769#issuecomment-350303123,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1769,350303123,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM1MDMwMzEyMw==,2783717,2017-12-08T16:14:11Z,2017-12-08T16:14:11Z,NONE,"Not with the current design, no. However, most `ma` methods are idempotent, so calling `ma.masked_invalid` on an already masked array will result in no changes.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,280385592
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/1093#issuecomment-259204793,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1093,259204793,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDI1OTIwNDc5Mw==,2783717,2016-11-08T17:37:25Z,2016-11-08T17:37:25Z,NONE,"I'm not sure if I follow how this is a duck typing use case. I'd write this as a method, following your suggestion on SO:

> Toward this end, it would be nice if xarray had something like dask.array's to_delayed method for converting a Dataset into an array of delayed datasets, which you could then lazily convert into DataFrame objects and do your computation.

Can you explain why you think this could benefit from collection duck typing?
","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,187872991
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/804#issuecomment-201529862,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/804,201529862,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDIwMTUyOTg2Mg==,2783717,2016-03-25T21:49:03Z,2016-03-25T21:49:03Z,NONE,"I'm fine with the duck typing, and could make that work fairly easily. The mutation is a bit trickier though. I see two good options here for what `b = dask.compute(a)` would do with `a` being an xarray object:
1. `b` is a new object with the computation performed, `a` still contains a dask array (uncomputed).
2. `b` is the same object as `a`, and the internals of `a` are mutated to contain evaluated data.

I'm slightly partial to option 2, as it seems to mesh more with how xarray currently uses dask. Thoughts?
","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,143551401
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/783#issuecomment-194026664,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/783,194026664,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDE5NDAyNjY2NA==,2783717,2016-03-08T23:41:38Z,2016-03-08T23:41:38Z,NONE,"We're going to try and do a bugfix release shortly. Thanks for reporting the issue!
","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,138332032
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/783#issuecomment-193995046,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/783,193995046,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDE5Mzk5NTA0Ng==,2783717,2016-03-08T22:20:48Z,2016-03-08T22:21:28Z,NONE,"@pwolfram, thanks for the bug report. This unearthed a pretty bad bug in the slicing code of dask. Should be fixed in https://github.com/dask/dask/pull/1038. If you have the chance, can you pull this branch and see if it fixes your problem?
","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,138332032
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/783#issuecomment-193618154,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/783,193618154,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDE5MzYxODE1NA==,2783717,2016-03-08T05:43:16Z,2016-03-08T05:43:16Z,NONE,"I'll look at this tomorrow if you don't beat me to it :)
","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,138332032