Stefan Behnel wrote: > Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >> Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >>> Robert Bradshaw wrote: >>>> In the interest of releasing sooner rather than later, a new alpha is >>>> up at >>>> >>>> http://cython.org/Cython-0.11.1.alpha.tar.gz >>>> >>>> There is a good patch by Lisandro that does Python <-> c int >>>> converstion that I'd like to see make it in, and Sage doesn't yet >>>> compile (mostly due to the "defined before used" bug catching--should >>>> this be merely a warning before the next major release?), but at this >>> +1 >> Though as the for loop semantics also changed, one could also argue to >> keep it as it is but name it 0.12. > > Although, if everyone who needs the bug fixes for 0.11 has to switch to > 0.12 anyway, what good is it to not name it 0.11.1? :)
The question is why we have a major/minor naming scheme at all. It could be a) Depending on how much time's elapsed since the last major. That's roughly our current policy :-) b) Substantial new features means new major. That's one guildeline, which speaks for naming this one 0.11.1. c) New major when backwards compatability is broken in any way. That's another, conflicting guideline, which speaks for naming this one 0.12. Myself I'm -1 on a) and +0 on b) and c). -- Dag Sverre _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
