Re: [Numpy-discussion] Schedule for 1.2.0
Hi Jarrod,
I'm just catching up on my numpy lists and I caught this; sorry for the late reply!
Another issue that we should address is whether it is OK to postpone the planned API changes to histogram and median. A couple of people have mentioned to me that they would like to delay the API changes to 1.3, which seems reasonable to me. If anyone would prefer that we make the planned API changes for histogram and median in 1.2, please speak now.
I *strongly* want both these changes for 1.2, as I am sure do the many people teaching courses using numpy for the fall. It is hard to get students to understand why there are inconsistencies and irrationalities in software, and it's even worse when it's open-source, since somehow it's the lecturer's fault that he picked a package that isn't right in some major way. Worse, we're changing these behaviors like 6 months from now, so students will have to learn it wrong and code it wrong, and then their code may break on top of it. On behalf of this year's new students and their instructors, I ask you to keep these changes in the release as planned.
Thanks,
--jh-- Prof. Joseph Harrington Department of Physics MAP 414 4000 Central Florida Blvd. University of Central Florida Orlando, FL 32816-2385
I think we should stick to what has been agreed and announced months ago. It's called honouring our commitments and the project's image depends on it.
If the inconvenience of these API changes is worth the trouble, a 1.1.2 release could be considered.
My two cents.
David
2008/7/22 Joe Harrington jh@physics.ucf.edu:
Hi Jarrod,
I'm just catching up on my numpy lists and I caught this; sorry for the late reply!
Another issue that we should address is whether it is OK to postpone the planned API changes to histogram and median. A couple of people have mentioned to me that they would like to delay the API changes to 1.3, which seems reasonable to me. If anyone would prefer that we make the planned API changes for histogram and median in 1.2, please speak now.
I *strongly* want both these changes for 1.2, as I am sure do the many people teaching courses using numpy for the fall. It is hard to get students to understand why there are inconsistencies and irrationalities in software, and it's even worse when it's open-source, since somehow it's the lecturer's fault that he picked a package that isn't right in some major way. Worse, we're changing these behaviors like 6 months from now, so students will have to learn it wrong and code it wrong, and then their code may break on top of it. On behalf of this year's new students and their instructors, I ask you to keep these changes in the release as planned.
Thanks,
--jh-- Prof. Joseph Harrington Department of Physics MAP 414 4000 Central Florida Blvd. University of Central Florida Orlando, FL 32816-2385 _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 6:46 AM, David Huard david.huard@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should stick to what has been agreed and announced months ago. It's called honouring our commitments and the project's image depends on it.
If the inconvenience of these API changes is worth the trouble, a 1.1.2 release could be considered.
+1 I would also like to stick with the original plans and make the changes in 1.2.0. I also think that given the fact that 1.1.1 will include a large number of bugfixes from the trunk the concerns about making the API change aren't as pronounced. I also agree that if it becomes an issue that releasing 1.1.2 might be a reasonable response.
If anyone still thinks that we should wait until 1.3 to make the changes, now is the time to speak up. Otherwise, let's plan to make the changes on the trunk by the end of the week.
participants (3)
-
David Huard -
Jarrod Millman -
Joe Harrington