On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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.
Actually, it is. The whole issue is caused by willing to change ABI without changing major feature, which is seldom done. ABI is generally only changed because you have no choice, not because it is more convenient. cheers, David _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
