On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 5:41 AM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joris De Ridder wrote: > > As Mike, I'm a bit sceptic about the whole idea. The current way > > doesn't seem broken, so why fix it? > > If the recent events do not show that something went wrong, I don't know > what will :)... > > The plan really is to have a code freeze and hard freeze between each > release, and time-based releases are more natural for that IMO, because > contributors can plan and synchronize more easily. Maybe it won't work, > but it worths a try; As Robert mentioned it before, code freeze and hard > code freeze is what matters.
I agree with this, so I think I'll have to apologize for misunderstanding the precise intent of the original message. Code freezing and plenty of testing to a schedule are a good thing. My only concern is that people don't feel compelled to push out a new release simply because the calendar rolled over (Fedora cough; Ubuntu, cough, cough). If there is a compelling feature set or bug fix, then by all means, set the schedule and go for it. Just don't fire up a release solely to show signs of life. Mike P.S. I'll take that median change in 1.1, wink :-) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
