On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:25 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Hameer Abbasi > <einstein.edi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The possibility of another major version change (possibly the same one) > > where we re-write all portions that were agreed upon (via NEPs) to be > > re-written, with a longer LTS release (3 years? 5?). > > > > I’m thinking this one could be similar to the Python 2 -> Python 3 > > transition. Note that this is different from having constant breakages, > this > > will be a mostly one-time effort and one-time breakage. > > I agree that this approach should probably be discussed in the NEP, > specifically in the "rejected alternatives" section. It keeps coming > up, and the reasons why it doesn't work for numpy are not obvious, so > well-meaning people will keep bringing it up. It'd be helpful to have > a single authoritative place to link to explaining why we don't do > things that way. > good idea, will do > The beginning of the NEP should maybe also state up front that we > follow a rolling-deprecations model where different breaking changes > happen simultaneously on their own timelines. It's so obvious to me > that I didn't notice it was missing, but this is a helpful reminder > that it's not obvious to everyone :-). > Hmm, indeed. It is that obvious to us, but clearly not to people who are new to NumPy/Python. Will add. Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion