The comments I have heard have been from people who haven't wanted to make them on this list. I wish they would, but I understand that not everyone wants to be drawn into a long discussion. They have not been discussions.
My bias is to just move forward with what is there. After a week or two of discussion, I expect that we will resolve this one way or another. The result be to just move forward as previously planned. However, that might not be the best move forward either. These are significant changes and they do impact users. We need to understand those implications and take very seriously any concerns from users. There is time to look at this carefully. We need to take the time. I am really posting so that the discussions Mark and I have this week (I haven't seen Mark since PyCon) can be productive with as many other people participating as possible. -- Travis Oliphant (on a mobile) 512-826-7480 On Apr 16, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Fernando Perez <fperez....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Ralf Gommers > <ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > That's the first time I've heard this. Until now, we have talked a lot about > > adding bitmasks and API changes, not about complete removal. My assumption > > was that the experimental label was enough. From Nathaniel's reaction I > > gathered the same. It looks like too many conversations on this topic are > > happening off-list. > > My impression was that Travis was just suggesting that as an option > here for discussion, not presenting it as something discussed > elsewhere. > > From "I have heard from a few people that they are not excited ...." I deduce > it was discussed to some extent. > > I read Travis' email precisely as restarting the > discussion for consideration of the issues in full public view > > It wasn't restating anything, it's completely opposite to the part that I > thought we did reach consensus on (*not* backing out changes). I stated as > much when first discussing a 1.7.0 in December, > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.numeric.general/47022/focus=47027, > with no one disagreeing. > > It's perfectly fine to reconsider any previous decisions/discussions of > course. > > However, I do now draw the conclusion that it's best to wait for this issue > to be resolved before considering a new release. I had been working on > closing tickets and cleaning up loose ends for 1.7.0, and pinging others to > do the same. I guess I'll stop doing that for now, until the renewed NA > debate has been settled. > > If there are bug fixes that are important (like the Debian segfaults with > Python debug builds), we can do a 1.6.2 release. > > Ralf > > (+ > calls/skype open to anyone interested for bandwidth purposes), so in > this case I don't think there's any background off-list to worry > about. At least that's how I read it... > > Cheers, > > f > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
