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

[Darren Dale]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Charles R Harris
<charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Darren Dale <dsdale24 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 21:23, Darren Dale <dsdale24 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 20:50, Darren Dale <dsdale24 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 18:43, Darren Dale <dsdale24 at gmail.com>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate:
>> >>>>>>> logical
>> >>>>>>> arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering
>> >>>>>>> these
>> >>>>>>> questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you
>> >>>>>>> are
>> >>>>>>> blue in the face, but without real data to premise them on, they
>> >>>>>>> are
>> >>>>>>> no better than the gut feelings. They can often be significantly
>> >>>>>>> worse
>> >>>>>>> if the strength of the logic gets confused with the strength of
>> >>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>> premise.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> If I recall correctly, the convention of not breaking ABI
>> >>>>>> compatibility in minor releases was established in response to the
>> >>>>>> last ABI compatibility break. Am I wrong?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I'm not sure how this relates to the material quoted of me, but no,
>> >>>>> you're not wrong.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Just trying to provide historical context to support the strength of
>> >>>> the premise.
>> >>>
>> >>> The existence of the policy is not under question (anymore; I settled
>> >>> that with old email a while ago). The question is whether to change
>> >>> the policy.
>> >>
>> >> So I have gathered. I question whether the concerns that lead to that
>> >> decision in the first place are somehow less important now.
>> >
>> > And we're back to gut feeling territory again.
>>
>> That's unfair. I can't win based on gut, you know how skinny I am.
>> __
>
> We haven't reached the extreme of the two physicists at SLAC who stepped
> outside to settle a point with fisticuffs. But with any luck we will get
> there ;)

Really? That also happened here at CHESS a long time ago, only they
didn't go outside to fight over who got to use the conference room.