[Numpy-discussion] Introduction to Scott, Jason, and (possibly) others from Enthought

[Travis Oliphant]

On May 27, 2010, at 6:51 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Travis Oliphant <oliphant at 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 at 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?

I think this makes sense so that we can reschedule NumPy 2.0 for  
September and still provide a release with the Python 3k changes (I am  
assuming these can be done in an ABI-compatible way).

-Travis

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20100528/b32c6875/attachment.html>