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

Travis Oliphant oliphant@enthought....
Thu Feb 11 16:38:31 CST 2010


On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:05 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Charles R Harris
> <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "...this should be purely technical IMO. There are well established  
>> rules
>> here:"
>>
>> Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0.
>
> It would be simple  if it were not for the obligation of getting it
> soon, in a matter of weeks. This means fixing any fundamental issue
> (e.g. to get a more maintainable ABI) is totally out of reach, and
> that we will have to maintain several branches at the same time, which
> I think everybody agree we lack the manpower for.

Whatever we do, I don't see how we are going to realistically maintain  
two separate branches.     I'm nervous about the implication of going  
to NumPy 2.0, but as Stephan mentions, it is just a matter of P.R.

If we put out appropriate notices and follow up with a 2.1 release  
near SciPy, then NumPy 3.0 can happen when we get the energy to fix  
the ABI questions and we don't imply that there will be a continuation  
of the 1.X series (i.e. the 2.0 is to indicate the ABI breakage  
requiring re-compilation).

The information I gathered (on this list and in private mails)  
indicates to me that it is still pretty split as to whether to number  
1.5 or 2.0.   I don't think the 1.5 side has been discussed much on  
this list except by me, and Stephan and David.   I'm typically  
concerned about "majority rules" system where it's the "vocal  
majority" that rules the day and not the "silent majority."

  I don't want to go the route of marking things "experimental" which  
David's pro-1.5 vote seemed to advocate.   From what I gathered,  
Pauli, David, and I were 1.5 with various degrees of opinion and  
Charles, and Robert are 2.0.    Others that I know about:  Stephan is  
1.5, Jarrod is 2.0, Matthew and Darren seem to be for 2.0.

Pauli, David, and Stephan, how opposed are you to numbering the next  
release as NumPy 2.0 with no experimental tag or the like.   If you  
three could also agree.   I could see my way through to supporting a  
NumPy 2.0 release.    I would ask for the following:

1) I would like the release to come out in about 3-4 weeks
2) I would like the release to contain all the ABI changes we think we  
will need until NumPy 3.0 when something like David's ideas are  
implemented which would need to be no sooner than 1 year from now.
3) The following changes to the ABI (no promise that I might not ask  
for more before the release date):

	* change the ABI indicator
	* put the DATETIME dtypes back in their original place in the list
	* move the *cast functions to the end of the ArrFuncs structure
	* place 2-3 place-holders in that ArrFuncs structure
	* fix the hasobject data-type

         Any other simple ABI changes that should be made?


Thanks,

-Travis



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20100211/3ceaa20a/attachment.html 


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list