On Apr 3, 2009, at 3:24 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote: > Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> On Apr 3, 2009, at 2:39 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >>> 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 :-) >> >> Well, there's a strong correlation between time elapsed and new >> features. > > At least for 0.11, there was also a strong relation between time > elapsed > and size of cleanups that needed major testing and consolidation. > So the > above doesn't /really/ reflect our current policy.
Hopefully with many smaller releases this will become less of an issue :) > For the same reason, cython-unstable should become a major 0.xy > release. > It changes too many things (not break, just change) to just become > a minor > release. > > >>> 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). >> >> I'm primarily guided by (b), where "substantial new features" may >> include internal re-factoring that requires lots of testing. > > +1, even without the "major testing" bit. Substantial code changes > do not > belong into a minor release. > > >> I think >> (c) is important too, but am not a stickler being pedantically strict >> on this. It should be very safe to do a 0.x.y upgrade, no promises >> that 0.y won't force you to change your code (for the better, though >> it should be avoided--hopefully just making people remove bad/ >> ambiguous/abusive code, or stuff like cdivision). > > That would rather speak for not making major semantic changes > before 0.12. > Still, I do consider the loop semantic fixes real bug fixes. The only > reason to go to 0.12 right away would be to say "sorry, 0.11 was a > mistake, it's dead now, please upgrade". I don't think that's true. There's a lot of good stuff in 0.11.1, but nothing big that I feel warrants a "full version" upgrade. Also, it will be good to push out stuff like the cdivision directives and warnings. - Robert _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
