On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds good, but what if it doesn't get finished in a few months? I think we > should get 2.0.0 out pronto, ideally it would already have been released. I > think a major refactoring like this proposal should get the 3.0.0 label. Naming it 3.0 or 2.1 does not matter much - I think we should avoid breaking things twice. I can see a few solutions: - postpone 2.0 "indefinitely", until this new work is done - backport py3k changes to 1.5 (which would be API and ABI compatible with 1.4.1), and 2.0 would contain all the breaking changes. I am really worried about breaking things once now and once in a few months (or even a year). David _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
