To the point of keeping people away from development versions: I think it is absolutely ok to use development versions but do not expect that any package works. If we would pay attention during development cycles that no packages break we would end up doing no development at all. We also had the issue during the 0.3 cycle that some essential packages were not usable anymore for the stable 0.2 version..
Am Freitag, 26. September 2014 18:22:20 UTC+2 schrieb Hans W Borchers: > > Dear John, > > I am sorry you felt uneasy when reading my post. I am sometimes a bit > ironic, > but please consider that irony is a friendly and sympathetic way to look > at > things. A pity you couldn't laugh about the comparison with Perl. (I never > use smileys.) > > I followed your advice and, unintendedly being transferred to 0.4, managed > to > move back to 0.3.1 -- at the price that some packages (like Cbc) don't > build > anymore at the moment. Still I think it is unfortunate to keep interested > and > adventurous users away from a development version. > > About the names I feel stricter. I don't like terms like 'Nullable' or > 'NullableArrays' (for 'DataArrays'?), terms than seem to fit better for a > systems programming language than for a technical computing environment. > I will get used to them, no problem. > > > On Friday, September 26, 2014 4:12:39 PM UTC+2, John Myles White wrote: >> >> Hans, >> >> The tone of your e-mail is a little odd in my opinion. It seems to imply >> distrust and even possibly anger for a project that would be substantially >> better served by participating actively in the issue discussions that Tim >> Holy discussed. I don't think anyone who's following 0.4's progress would >> ever believe that 0.4 is not on track. >> >> -- John >> >> >>
