Updated with more complete draft of release notes---please do take a look, they are pretty long, probably still missing some things, and the choice of highlights is wonderful but difficult so input there is helpful.

My next task here is to scan through the PRs with the 1.4.0 milestone labelled with enhancement, and fill in whatever might be missing. That is my project for this afternoon.

Looks good @tylerjereddy, thanks. Line wrapping at 80 characters would be nice.

Line wrapping at 80 characters would be nice.

Good idea, I've done that now---excluding the PR/issues lists if that's alright.

excluding the PR/issues lists if that's alright.

yes you're right, those are better left as is

Updated after manual curation of Enhancement PRs merged for 1.4.0.

This is starting to look pretty complete

Probably a few last minute merges have escaped capture here. Feel free to suggest those updates, otherwise I'll probably have to do another pass on the scraping scripts.

I've updated with another fresh pass using the author & issue/PR lists scripts. Update was pretty clean--one new author & a few issues/PRs from last minute merges.

If people don't respond about preferred name, I would suggest to use what's on their GitHub profile or in their email address. If you can be reasonably certain, that's better than a GitHub handle. This is what I've always done in the past.

If people don't respond about preferred name, I would suggest to use what's on their GitHub profile or in their email address

I made another manual pass---it still isn't perfect, but fairly solid now I'd say apart from a few "ghosts."

The lists should all be up-to-date for 7095a04, which should be the last code change in master before the release notes, I'd say.

Ok, I need to branch and I've resolved the comments so far for this DOC PR. CircleCI stuff is related to last-minute merging I think.

So, merging the release notes.

The build_docs CI jobs is failing because of some link issues in this PR, guess that needs fixing on both branches now.

Note sure if this is a helpful comment or not, but: Some function references use single backticks, while others (in the scipy.signal and scipy.stats sections) use :func:.

Similarly, just by pattern matching, I would expect that the reference to scipy.stats.reciprocal should have only single backticks and not double ones.

Thanks @fuglede, it is. :func: should never be needed, and is annoying because we need to use the plain-text version of the release notes in a couple of places.