On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Travis Oliphant <oliphant@enthought.com> wrote:

On May 25, 2010, at 5:06 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:

> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Charles R Harris
> <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sounds good, but what if it doesn't get finished in a few months? I think we
>> should get 2.0.0 out pronto, ideally it would already have been released. I
>> think a major refactoring like this proposal should get the 3.0.0 label.
>
> Naming it 3.0 or 2.1 does not matter much - I think we should avoid
> breaking things twice. I can see a few solutions:
>  - postpone 2.0 "indefinitely", until this new work is done
>  - backport py3k changes to 1.5 (which would be API and ABI
> compatible with 1.4.1), and 2.0 would contain all the breaking
> changes.

This is an interesting idea and also workable.

>
> I am really worried about breaking things once now and once in a few
> months (or even a year).

I am too.  That's why this discussion.    We will have the NumPy refactor done by end of July at the latest.   Numpy 2.0 should be able to come out in August.

This thread got a bit side-tracked with the move to git, but I don't see a conclusion about what to release when.

Even if the refactoring is done in July, I think a 2.0 release with so many major changes will probably need a longer test/release cycle. So if we say September, do you still want a 1.5 release?