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

Charles R Harris charlesr.harris@gmail....
Thu Feb 4 00:50:06 CST 2010

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Travis Oliphant <oliphant@enthought.com>wrote:

> A more important scenario is as follows: let's assume we do allow
> breaking the ABI every 1.X release, meaning that an ABI incompatible
> change happens every ~ 6 months at the current pace (using the last 2-3
> years as history).
> If the issue is having too many releases that are .X releases, then let's
> just slow that down.   We are going to have to be able to break ABI
> compatibility at some point.  I agree it should not be taken lightly.
>  But, we have to allow it to happen.
> For example, there has been a change I've wanted to see in the NumPy data
> structure ever since 1.0 that I did not make precisely to avoid breaking ABI
> compatibility.    The 'hasobject' field in the PyArray_Descr structure is
> too small and should be renamed.    There is a comment in the code stating
> that this field needs to change as soon as we are willing to break ABI
> compatibility (and the field still hasn't changed).   The comment is still
> there.  Obviously I have been cautious about ABI compatibility.  I just
> never had the opinion that we would *never* change the ABI.
> I don't think there is any disagreement in the general idea that the ABI
> should remain stable for a long time.    I think the problem is that in this
> particular instance, we had different opinions about the importance of ABI
> compatibility for the 1.4 release.   I did not think it was possible, and
> was surprised when it was attempted.    I should have voiced those concerns
> more loudly.
> What about the idea of making a 1.3.1 release that maintains ABI
> compatibility with previous releases.  This would basically allow for 1.X
> releases where .X is even to break ABI compatibility (not saying they always
> will, but might).  The odd releases never do.
> I will help make the 1.3.1 release if this is an agreeable solution.   This
> pattern would certainly help create stability while still allowing change to
> happen in a reasonable way.
1.3.1, 1.4.1, what's the difference? 1.4 is already out and causing trouble.
I don't see how another four months waiting for the datetime release is a
killer and it is still in the trunk. Why does it have to be in 1.4?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20100203/1983bb9e/attachment.html 

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list