[Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

David Cournapeau cournape at gmail.com
Mon Jun 25 23:35:30 EDT 2012

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík <ondrej.certik at gmail.com> wrote:

> My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress "We have to
> think about the implications of our changes on existing users." and
> also that little changes (with the best intentions!) that however mean
> either a breakage or confusion for users (due to historical reasons)
> should be avoided if possible. And I very strongly feel the same way.
> And I think that most people on this list do as well.

I think Travis is more concerned about API than ABI changes (in that
example for 1.4, the ABI breakage was caused by a change that was
pushed by Travis IIRC).

The relative importance of API vs ABI is a tough one: I think ABI
breakage is as bad as API breakage (but matter in different
circumstances), but it is hard to improve the situation around our ABI
without changing the API (especially everything around macros and
publicly accessible structures). Changing this is politically
difficult because nobody will upgrade to a new numpy with a different
API just because it is cleaner, but without a cleaner API, it will be
difficult to implement quite a few improvements. The situation is not
that different form python 3, which has seen a poor adoption, and only
starts having interesting feature on its own now.

As for more concrete actions: I believe Wes McKinney has a
comprehensive suite with multiple versions of numpy/pandas, I can't
seem to find where that was mentioned, though. This would be a good
starting point to check ABI matters (say pandas, mpl, scipy on top of
multiple numpy).


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list