On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Travis Oliphant <oliph...@enthought.com>wrote:
> > On May 25, 2010, at 5:06 PM, David Cournapeau 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. > > This is an interesting idea and also workable. > > > > > I am really worried about breaking things once now and once in a few > > months (or even a year). > > I am too. That's why this discussion. We will have the NumPy refactor > done by end of July at the latest. Numpy 2.0 should be able to come out in > August. > > This thread got a bit side-tracked with the move to git, but I don't see a conclusion about what to release when. Even if the refactoring is done in July, I think a 2.0 release with so many major changes will probably need a longer test/release cycle. So if we say September, do you still want a 1.5 release? Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
