2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt <ste...@sun.ac.za> > On 11 February 2010 15:38, Darren Dale <dsdal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt <ste...@sun.ac.za>: > >> On 11 February 2010 09:52, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0. > >> > >> I'm going with the element of least surprise: no one will be surprised > >> when 1.5 is released with ABI changes > > > > I'll buy you a doughnut if that turns out to be correct. > > Now I wish I said "few people" instead :) > > As I read the discussion, I realised that not many people (including > developers) were aware of the versioning policy. Since we did not > follow the policy in the past, there is no precedent (hence, little > surprise). > > How do precedents get established?
> If we make enough noise (release notes, notification on sourceforge, > post on list, message in installer, etc.) upon releasing "1.5", that > should be ample warning, and it may also be a good trial run for numpy > 2.0. > > The major version number is unrelated to features, it is an ABI marker, not a feature marker. If one so much as breathes on the ABI, the major version number needs to change. Another suggestion could be to go the Mayavi2 route, with numpy2 being > the completely redesigned library. Whether that is sane, I don't > know. > > Either way, I am quite happy to follow the lead of the release manager > for 1.3.9/1.4.1/2.0. > > Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
