On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 6:07 AM, Francesc Alted <fal...@pytables.org> wrote:
> 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? > > I like the idea of pushing the version number of the ABI breaking release up to 2.0. We can't just relabel 1.4.0, though, because of the prospective hasobject addition. I think David is also concerned about having to support essentially two versions of Numpy, which would be a hassle. However, if Travis is willing to remove datetime from the current 1.4.0, then maybe that could be released with the understanding that the next release of Scipy will be built against the the ABI breaking version. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
