-- (mobile phone of) Travis Oliphant Enthought, Inc. 1-512-536-1057 http://www.enthought.com
On Feb 13, 2010, at 2:34 PM, Jarrod Millman <mill...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Travis Oliphant <oliph...@enthought.com > > wrote: >> This is exactly what I was worried about with calling the next >> release >> 2.0. >> >> This is not the time to change all the things we wish were done >> differently. >> >> The release is scheduled for 3 weeks. > > Hey Travis, > > I agree with your general sentiment (and I assume Chuck does too). > And I don't think either of us is suggesting that we change all the > things we want done differently. I do think that it is reasonable for > us to suggest a few changes that could be implemented quickly to the > list and just have a quick up or down vote on that specific issue > without having to have a general discussion regarding what 2.0 is. > OK. > So there are at least three suggestions on the table right now: > > 1. I would like to add deprecation warnings for the numarray and > numeric support (but leave all the code in at least until the 3.0 > release). > +1 > 2. Chuck proposed requiring explicit imports for things like fft. > +0 > 3. Chuck also suggested deprecating the old polynomial support and > make it not be imported by default. > I need to review his Poly class before giving a vote. I don't like the fact that it removes pretty printing by default. -Travis > These things are relatively small and easy to implement. If someone > is willing to do the work within, say a week, I think we should go for > it. I am sure others may disagree. > > Why can't we just agree that the release is scheduled for 3 weeks from > now. And if someone suggests a change that they commit to > implementing in one weeks time and that won't require very much new > code (for instance a deprecation warning), let's just vote for or > against it. If it seems like people are generally in favor of the > change, let's include it. > > So without changing the timing of the next release, would you still be > against the three changes suggested by Chuck and me? I am in favor of > making the above three changes as long as they don't add a ton of new > code, functionality, or delay the release in any way. What do other > people think? > > Thanks, > Jarrod > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
