On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Travis Oliphant <oliph...@enthought.com>wrote: > >> >> On Feb 8, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Jarrod Millman <mill...@berkeley.edu>wrote: >> >>> I went ahead and set the default download for NumPy back to the 1.3.0 >>> release on sourceforge. I also added a news item stating that 1.4.0 >>> has temporarily been pulled due to the unintended ABI break pending a >>> decision by the developers. Currently, the 1.4.0 release can still be >>> accessed if you go to the download manager for sourceforge. >>> >>> >> I think we need to make that decision now. It seems to have gotten hung up >> in conflicts that need to be resolved. How should we go about it? Does the >> numpy steering council (name?) have a role here. >> >> >> It seems like consensus has been reached on making 1.4.1 an ABI compatible >> release. >> >> The remaining question is what to call the next release of NumPy 1.5 or >> 2.0. >> >> I would prefer to call it 1.5 because 2.0 "sounds" like it's significantly >> different from a use-level than 1.4, but it won't be. While it is a pain >> to update all your packages, we just make clear that with NumPy 1.5 you have >> to re-compile extensions built with it. Yes, that is a break with what we >> thought would be the pattern used at SciPy 2008, but it has been many years >> since an ABI break has occurred, and I wouldn't mind updating the pattern. >> >> >> I don't really like the idea of tying the version number to the ABI number >> anyway. This was one reason to put an actual ABI number in the source >> code to begin with (so that it could be queried independently of the version >> number). >> >> I do agree that the ABI should not change much. But, sometimes it is >> unavoidable. This rare occurrence should really be independent of the >> version number system which should be allowed to change independently based >> on the API alterations. >> >> I'm not really much in to "majority-wins" kinds of approaches (I much >> prefer consensus when it can be reached). But, in this case I think the >> majority of David, Pauli, Chuck, Robert, and I should decide the issue. >> >> > It sounds like the remaining issue is the number to give to the ABI > breaking release. All releases should naturally be made as expeditiously as > possible. So, here is the question before the house: > > Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called > > a) 1.5.0 > b) 2.0.0 > > My vote goes to a). > > Oops, make that b). I want it to be called 2.0.0 Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion