2010/5/25 Stéfan van der Walt <ste...@sun.ac.za> > On 25 May 2010 15:06, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > This is a good suggestion. Release 1.5 without ABI breakage and then > leave enough time to discuss an optimal API, refactor the C code and > include datetime functionality for 2.0. We don't stand anything to > gain by rushing. > > If I'm not mistaken, David did warn that this kind of situation may > occur the last time around :) > > IIRC, David was seeing a refactor a year or two off, if ever. I'm concerned that the refactor will go on and on and on, not least because I haven't seen any plan or discussion as to what the precise goals of the refactor are, much less a plan for how to get there. It's hard to have a sprint when no one knows what they are trying to achieve.
Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
