On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi, > > > Sounds to me like you don't fully agree w/ Travis - he said "This is > exactly > > what I was worried about with calling the next release 2.0." Seems that > > Travis understands that the larger community, whether we want them to or > > not, _does_ "attach...much importance to [a] big number change" and wants > to > > avoid calling the next release 2.0 precisely because he recognizes that > the > > changes we do think we can make in three weeks don't warrant that > magnitude > > of a number change. But then, perhaps I shouldn't speak for Travis, > sorry > > Travis. ;-) > > I think the wider community will be OK, as long as we stay calm about > not getting overwhelmed with the number change, and just doing an > ordinary release. I can't see us losing many users if they pick up > 2.0 and don't see lots of new features, at least, that's never worried > me in other people's releases. In any case, I think we're committed > to the 2.0 version number at this point. > I recognize this falls into the category of "too little, too late" (I stopped following the ABI breakage thread and thus didn't know that it had morphed into a new release/naming thread) but "-1" on calling the new release "2.0". DG
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
