On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Jarrod Millman <mill...@berkeley.edu>wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Let me propose a schedule: > > > > 1.4.1 : Bug fix, no datetime, ~4-6wks from now. > > 2.0 : API break, datetime, hasobject changes, April - May timeframe > > 2.1 : Python 3K - Fall > > I like your schedule in general. The only change I would suggest is > releasing 1.4.1 ASAP with just datetime removed. We can always > release a 1.4.2 with more bugfixes later. I like getting a 2.0 out in > April-May with API break, datetime, and hasobject changes. It gives > us time to communicate with all the other packagers and doesn't > prevent us from quickly getting datetime out. The only thing I would > suggest is that we try to get at least experimental support for Py3k > out with the 2.0 release in April-May (even in an unreleased branch). > That way other projects (scipy, matplotlib, etc) could potentially > work on Py3k support over the summer as well. > > I put 1.4.1 4-6 wks out to give the apprentice release guys some time. Also, there are some small fixes that should go in, Travis' commits from this morning, for instance. Lets say a code freeze a week from monday, release as soon as possible after. Realistically, I don't think Py3k will be ready by April-May. Fall is probably doable and maybe there will be some things for a SOC person to work on this summer. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
