2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt <ste...@sun.ac.za> > On 11 February 2010 03:22, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think one issue with versions is that they convey multiple things at > > the same time. The number itself conveys an idea of "progress" and > > "features" - the bigger the change in the number, the bigger changes > > are expected by users. This is the part where everyone has an opinion. > > > > Then, there is also the idea that for a library, versions conveys ABI > > and API compatibility, and this should be purely technical IMO. There > > are well established rules here: > > You hit the nail on the head; this conflict arose because we did not > have a version policy in place earlier. An expectation was generated > that NumPy 2.0 would co-incide with a thorough review of the API (an > exercise I hope we complete in the next year or two). > > We have a simple decision to make: do we renege on the promise of an > API review for 2.0, or do we neglect the new versioning system? > > Since the new versioning system has not been in use all that long (the > reason for this minor upset),
A policy has effect from the time of promulgation. It's not like you have to wait a couple of years while it seasons. > we don't stand much to lose by naming > this next ABI-breaking release 1.5. > > Except the accepted policy will be discarded and we will have to start all over again. We can't change policy on a whim and still maintain that we *have* a policy. We won't have one. But we can have long discussions... "...this should be purely technical IMO. There are well established rules here:" Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
