A Saturday 06 February 2010 13:17:22 David Cournapeau escrigué: > On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Travis Oliphant <oliph...@enthought.com> wrote: > > I think this plan is the least disruptive and satisfies the concerns > > of all parties in the discussion. The other plans that have been > > proposed do not address my concerns of keeping the date-time changes > > In that regard, your proposal is very similar to what was suggested at > the beginning - the difference is only whether breaking at 1.4.x or > 1.5.x.
I'm thinking why should we so conservative in raising version numbers? Why not relabeling 1.4.0 to 2.0 and mark 1.4.0 as a broken release? Then, we can continue by putting everything except ABI breaking features in 1.4.1. With this, NumPy 2.0 will remain available for people wanting to be more on-the- bleeding-edge. Something similar to what has happened with Python 3.0, which has not prevented the 2.x series to evolve. How this sounds? -- Francesc Alted _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
