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

Charles R Harris charlesr.harris@gmail....
Mon Feb 8 15:57:48 CST 2010


On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Travis Oliphant <oliphant@enthought.com>wrote:

>
> On Feb 8, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Jarrod Millman <millman@berkeley.edu>wrote:
>
>> I went ahead and set the default download for NumPy back to the 1.3.0
>> release on sourceforge.  I also added a news item stating that 1.4.0
>> has temporarily been pulled due to the unintended ABI break pending a
>> decision by the developers.  Currently, the 1.4.0 release can still be
>> accessed if you go to the download manager for sourceforge.
>>
>>
> I think we need to make that decision now. It seems to have gotten hung up
> in conflicts that need to be resolved. How should we go about it? Does the
> numpy steering council (name?) have a role here.
>
>
> It seems like consensus has been reached on making 1.4.1 an ABI compatible
> release.
>
> The remaining question is what to call the next release of NumPy 1.5 or
> 2.0.
>
> I would prefer to call it 1.5 because 2.0 "sounds" like it's significantly
> different from a use-level than 1.4, but it won't be.    While it is a pain
> to update all your packages, we just make clear that with NumPy 1.5 you have
> to re-compile extensions built with it.   Yes, that is a break with what we
> thought would be the pattern used at SciPy 2008, but it has been many years
> since an ABI break has occurred, and I wouldn't mind updating the pattern.
>
>
> I don't really like the idea of tying the version number to the ABI number
> anyway.    This was one reason to put an actual ABI number in the source
> code to begin with (so that it could be queried independently of the version
> number).
>
> I do agree that the ABI should not change much.  But, sometimes it is
> unavoidable.    This rare occurrence should really be independent of the
> version number system which should be allowed to change independently based
> on the API alterations.
>
> I'm not really much in to "majority-wins" kinds of approaches (I much
> prefer consensus when it can be reached).  But, in this case I think the
> majority of David, Pauli, Chuck, Robert, and I should decide the issue.
>
>
It sounds like the remaining issue is the number to give to the ABI breaking
release. All releases should naturally be made as expeditiously as possible.
So, here is the question before the house:

Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called

a) 1.5.0
b) 2.0.0

My vote goes to a).

Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20100208/d2312202/attachment.html 


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list