On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Travis Oliphant <oliph...@enthought.com> wrote: > > I apologize for the mis communication that has occurred here.
No problem > I did not > understand that there was a desire to keep ABI compatibility with NumPy 1.3 > when NumPy 1.4 was released. The datetime merge was made under that > presumption. > I had assumed that people would be fine with recompilation of extension > modules that depend on the NumPy C-API. There are several things that > needed to be done to merge in new fundamental data-types. > Why don't we call the next release NumPy 2.0 if that helps things? > Personally, I'd prefer that over hacks to keep ABI compatibility. Keeping ABI compatibility by itself is not an hack - the current workaround is an hack, but that's only because the current way of doing things in code generator is a bit ugly, and I did not want to spend too much time on it. It is purely an implementation issue, the fundamental idea is straightforward. If you want a cleaner solution, I can work on it. I think the hour or so that it would take is worth it compared to breaking many people's code. > It > feels like we are working very hard to track ABI issues that can also be > handled with dependency checking and good package management. I think ABI issues are mostly orthogonal to versioning - generally, versions are related to API changes (API changes is what should drive ABI changes, at least for projects like numpy). I would prefer passing to "numpy 2.0" when we really need to break ABI and API - at that point, I think we should also think hard about changing our structures and all to make them more robust to those changes (using pimp-like strategies in particular). David _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
