On May 27, 2010, at 6:51 AM, Ralf Gommers 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.
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?
I think this makes sense so that we can reschedule NumPy 2.0 for
September and still provide a release with the Python 3k changes (I am
assuming these can be done in an ABI-compatible way).
-Travis
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
