On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 6:29 AM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 8:07 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 think breaking with 1.5 sounds good because it starts the second > part of the 1.x series. > 2.0 could be for the big overhaul that David has in mind, unless it > will not be necessary anymore > > Well, let's just go with David then. I think the important thing is to settle this and move on.
Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion