[Numpy-discussion] 1.8 release

[Ralf Gommers]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:19 AM, David Cournapeau <cournape at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Charles R Harris
> > <charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Now that 1.7 is nearing release, it's time to look forward to the 1.8
> >> release. I'd like us to get back to the twice yearly schedule that we
> tried
> >> to maintain through the 1.3 - 1.6 releases, so I propose a June release
> as a
> >> goal. Call it the Spring Cleaning release. As to content, I'd like to
> see
> >> the following.
> >>
> >> Removal of Python 2.4-2.5 support.
> >> Removal of SCons support.
> >> The index work consolidated.
> >> Initial stab at removing the need for 2to3. See Pauli's PR for scipy.
> >> Miscellaneous enhancements and fixes.
> >
> > I'd actually like to propose a faster release cycle than this, even.
> > Perhaps 3 months between releases; 2 months from release n to the
> > first beta of n+1?
> >
> > The consequences would be:
> > * Changes get out to users faster.
> > * Each release is smaller, so it's easier for downstream projects to
> > adjust to each release -- instead of having this giant pile of changes
> > to work through all at once every 6-12 months
> > * End-users are less scared of updating, because the changes aren't so
> > overwhelming, so they end up actually testing (and getting to take
> > advantage of) the new stuff more.
> > * We get feedback more quickly, so we can fix up whatever we break
> > while we still know what we did.
> > * And for larger changes, if we release them incrementally, we can get
> > feedback before we've gone miles down the wrong path.
> > * Releases come out on time more often -- sort of paradoxical, but
> > with small, frequent releases, beta cycles go smoother, and it's
> > easier to say "don't worry, I'll get it ready for next time", or
> > "right, that patch was less done than we thought, let's take it out
> > for now" (also this is much easier if we don't have another years
> > worth of changes committed on top of the patch!).
> > * If your schedule does slip, then you still end up with a <6 month
> > release cycle.
> >
> > 1.6.x was branched from master in March 2011 and released in May 2011.
> > 1.7.x was branched from master in July 2012 and still isn't out. But
> > at least we've finally found and fixed the second to last bug!
> >
> > Wouldn't it be nice to have a 2-4 week beta cycle that only found
> > trivial and expected problems? We *already* have 6 months worth of
> > feature work in master that won't be in the *next* release.
> >
> > Note 1: if we do do this, then we'll also want to rethink the
> > deprecation cycle a bit -- right now we've sort of vaguely been saying
> > "well, we'll deprecate it in release n and take it out in n+1.
> > Whenever that is". 3 months definitely isn't long enough for a
> > deprecation period, so if we do do this then we'll want to deprecate
> > things for multiple releases before actually removing them. Details to
> > be determined.
> >
> > Note 2: in this kind of release schedule, you definitely don't want to
> > say "here are the features that will be in the next release!", because
> > then you end up slipping and sliding all over the place. Instead you
> > say "here are some things that I want to work on next, and we'll see
> > which release they end up in". Since we're already following the rule
> > that nothing goes into master until it's done and tested and ready for
> > release anyway, this doesn't really change much.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Hey, my time to have a time-machine:
> http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2008-May/033754.html
>
> I still think it is a good idea :)
>

+1 for faster and time-based releases.

3 months does sound a little too short to me (5 or 6 would be better),
since a release cycle typically doesn't fit in one month.

Ralf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20130114/85b7d5f0/attachment.html>