[Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

[Charles R Harris]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Charles R Harris
<charlesr.harris at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Travis Oliphant <oliphant at enthought.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Jarrod Millman <millman at berkeley.edu>wrote:
>>
>>> I went ahead and set the default download for NumPy back to the 1.3.0
>>> release on sourceforge.  I also added a news item stating that 1.4.0
>>> has temporarily been pulled due to the unintended ABI break pending a
>>> decision by the developers.  Currently, the 1.4.0 release can still be
>>> accessed if you go to the download manager for sourceforge.
>>>
>>>
>> I think we need to make that decision now. It seems to have gotten hung up
>> in conflicts that need to be resolved. How should we go about it? Does the
>> numpy steering council (name?) have a role here.
>>
>>
>> It seems like consensus has been reached on making 1.4.1 an ABI compatible
>> release.
>>
>> The remaining question is what to call the next release of NumPy 1.5 or
>> 2.0.
>>
>> I would prefer to call it 1.5 because 2.0 "sounds" like it's significantly
>> different from a use-level than 1.4, but it won't be.    While it is a pain
>> to update all your packages, we just make clear that with NumPy 1.5 you have
>> to re-compile extensions built with it.   Yes, that is a break with what we
>> thought would be the pattern used at SciPy 2008, but it has been many years
>> since an ABI break has occurred, and I wouldn't mind updating the pattern.
>>
>>
>> I don't really like the idea of tying the version number to the ABI number
>> anyway.    This was one reason to put an actual ABI number in the source
>> code to begin with (so that it could be queried independently of the version
>> number).
>>
>> I do agree that the ABI should not change much.  But, sometimes it is
>> unavoidable.    This rare occurrence should really be independent of the
>> version number system which should be allowed to change independently based
>> on the API alterations.
>>
>> I'm not really much in to "majority-wins" kinds of approaches (I much
>> prefer consensus when it can be reached).  But, in this case I think the
>> majority of David, Pauli, Chuck, Robert, and I should decide the issue.
>>
>>
> It sounds like the remaining issue is the number to give to the ABI
> breaking release. All releases should naturally be made as expeditiously as
> possible. So, here is the question before the house:
>
> Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called
>
> a) 1.5.0
> b) 2.0.0
>
> My vote goes to a).
>
>
Oops, make that b). I want it to be called 2.0.0

Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20100208/ca8a295c/attachment.html>