On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Jarrod Millman <mill...@berkeley.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris >> <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called >>> >>> a) 1.5.0 >>> b) 2.0.0 >> >> My vote goes to b. > > I guess Travis' point is that 2.0 implies rather large feature > difference from - say 1.0.0 - and this isn't the case.
Not that I actually know much about it, but I thought that datetime is a 'rather large feature' difference both in terms of functionality and code. Definitely it will allow a unified date/time usage across various scikits and other projects that have time functions. >On the other > hand, I don't see what substantial difference that makes in the long > run - we can always go to 3.0 for a big rewrite and I don't think > we'll use any users as a result. On the other hand we might lose > users from an ABI change not easily predicted from the version > numbering. I guess what I'm saying is we have lots of integers left, > and they are cheap, and I'd also vote for using one up to get round > this little hurdle. > > Best, > > Matthew Numbers are just numbers especially since Numeric got to version 24.2. But these numbers have to mean something as both Jarrod and Robert have indicated. My vote is for b especially as it provides a nice number to indicate compatibility to other programs like Cython and potentially Python 3 support (or lack of it). Bruce _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
