On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:06 PM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 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. > If I had to choose between those, I would pick making a 1.5 release, that is, branch the current trunk and then excise datetime and all the related changes. Let me propose a schedule: - Branch 1.5 in late June. The time until then to be spent closing tickets. - Release 1.5 towards the end of July. That should be doable now that the release folks have had some practice. - Release 2.0 next spring. I don't think 3 man months is enough time to redesign/refactor numpy, get it tested, and document the changes. If we hide stuff away it will be even longer before folks who have written extensions can make the needed changes. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
