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

[Christopher Barker]

David Cournapeau wrote:
>>> 1.4.x, not about removing datetime altogether. It seems that datetime in
>>> 1.4.x has few users,
>> Of course it has few users -- it's brand new!
> 
> Yes, but that's my point: removing it has low impact, whereas breaking
> ABI has a big impact.

My point is that it will likely get more users in time, and much more so 
if it's part of a numpy release, rather than an experimental feature 
that you need to go to svn to and built to get. I"m planning on using 
it, but probably won't until it does make it's way into a release.

> I don't know any good library which breaks ABI "once in a while" where
> once in a while means several times a year.

Let's be honest here:
  - yes, there have been numpy "minor version" updates a couple times a 
year.
  - yes, this is a case of changing the ABI on minor update.

However, that does not mean that anyone is proposing breaking the ABI at 
every minor update! This is a discussion about this particular case -- 
that's it.

It's unfortunate that it got this far without us all realizing what a 
big deal it was, and making a proper, informed decision before release. 
Lesson learned, I hope!

Charles R Harris wrote:
>  Why does it have to be  in 1.4?

One reason: Because it already is.

However, if we do have other ABI-changing ideas (as Travis indicated), 
it would be better to do them all at once!

This does make me want (once again), some kind of package versioing 
system in python...

Travis Oliphant wrote:
>  There are down-sides to any choice we make,
> but I would argue that if we choose something like 1.3.1 (or maybe  
> 1.3.9) we can promise no ABI breakage in odd releases and use this as  
> an "experience" to re-enforce the memory of that commitment.

This is asking for a formal system of "stable" and "unstable" releases 
-- so that both are out there. wxPython has done this a fair bit, for 
instance, though we did need to provide the wx.version version selection 
system to support it...

Travis Oliphant wrote:
> There are currently 2 groups of NumPy users: 
> 
>  1)  those who have re-compiled all of their code for 1.4.0

I"m one of those folks, but to be honest, Im noit sure there are that 
many of us -- there are an awful lot of MPL/scipy etc users that don't 
compile themselves...

 > If they have bitten the bullet
> now, they will be rewarded with a stable ABI

unless there are other ABI changes we want to make fairly soon.

Matthew Brett wrote:
> It is time for an on list vote?

not much point -- Travis and I are the only ones supporting the ABI 
change now, and Travis is the only one that matters -- if we're going 
with majority vote, the answer is clear.

-Chris








-- 
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R            (206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115       (206) 526-6317   main reception

Chris.Barker@noaa.gov