On Oct 7, 2009, at 3:06 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Charles R Harris
<charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:


Looks like a clue ;)

Ok, I fixed it here:

http://github.com/cournape/numpy/tree/fix_abi

But that's an ugly hack. I think we should consider rewriting how we
generate the API: instead of automatically growing the API array of
fptr, we should explicitly mark which function name has which index,
and hardcode it. It would help quite a bit to avoid changing the ABI
unvoluntary.

I apologize for the mis communication that has occurred here.   I did not understand that there was a desire to keep ABI compatibility with NumPy 1.3 when NumPy 1.4 was released.    The datetime merge was made under that presumption.  

I had assumed that people would be fine with recompilation of extension modules that depend on the NumPy C-API.    There are several things that needed to be done to merge in new fundamental data-types.   

Why don't we call the next release NumPy 2.0 if that helps things?    Personally, I'd prefer that over hacks to keep ABI compatibility.   It feels like we are working very hard to track ABI issues that can also be handled with dependency checking and good package management.

-Travis