On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > 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.
My understanding is that there was a general agreement on splitting the code that breaks the ABI/API (datetime, maybe future refactoring) from everything else (mostly py3k port): - 1.5: everything in the trunk minus API/ABI breaking stuff - 2.0: still in flux, depends on how the refactoring will happen cheers, David _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion