I'm breaking my promise, after people wrote me offlist encouraging me to keep pushing my point of view.
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 8:23 PM, David Cournapeau <da...@silveregg.co.jp> wrote: > Jarrod Millman wrote: >> Just >> to be clear, I would prefer to see the ABI-breaking release be called >> 2.0. I don't see why we have to get the release out in three weeks, >> though. I think it would be better to use this opportunity to take >> some time to make sure we get it right. > > As a compromise, what about the following: > - remove ABI-incompatible changes for 1.4.x > - release a 1.5.0 marked as experimental, with everything that Travis > wants to put in. It would be a preview for python 3k as well, so it > conveys the idea that it is experimental pretty well. Why can't this be called 2.0beta, with a __version__ like 1.9.96? I don't understand the reluctance to follow numpy's own established conventions. > - the 1.6.x branch would be a polished 1.5.x. This could be called that 2.0.x instead of 1.6.x > The advantages is that 1.5.0 ... or 2.0beta ... > can be push relatively early, but we would > still keep 1.4.0 as the "stable" release, against which every other > binary installer should be built (scipy, mpl). Darren _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion