Hi, > I don't want to go the route of marking things "experimental" which David's > pro-1.5 vote seemed to advocate. From what I gathered, Pauli, David, and I > were 1.5 with various degrees of opinion and Charles, and Robert are 2.0. > Others that I know about: Stephan is 1.5, Jarrod is 2.0, Matthew and > Darren seem to be for 2.0.
Yes - I'm still rather strongly for 2.0, on the basis that the downside (not as many new features as people might expect, a feeling that we might support a 1.x series) are considerably less damaging than unexpected ABI breakage. > I could see my way through to supporting a NumPy 2.0 release. I > would ask for the following: > 1) I would like the release to come out in about 3-4 weeks > 2) I would like the release to contain all the ABI changes we think we will > need until NumPy 3.0 when something like David's ideas are implemented which > would need to be no sooner than 1 year from now. > 3) The following changes to the ABI (no promise that I might not ask for > more before the release date): > * change the ABI indicator > * put the DATETIME dtypes back in their original place in the list > * move the *cast functions to the end of the ArrFuncs structure > * place 2-3 place-holders in that ArrFuncs structure > * fix the hasobject data-type > Any other simple ABI changes that should be made? That all seems good to me. See you, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
