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

Charles R Harris charlesr.harris@gmail....
Thu Feb 11 01:52:34 CST 2010

2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt <stefan@sun.ac.za>

> On 11 February 2010 03:22, David Cournapeau <cournape@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think one issue with versions is that they convey multiple things at
> > the same time. The number itself conveys an idea of "progress" and
> > "features" - the bigger the change in the number, the bigger changes
> > are expected by users. This is the part where everyone has an opinion.
> >
> > Then, there is also the idea that for a library, versions conveys ABI
> > and API compatibility, and this should be purely technical IMO. There
> > are well established rules here:
> You hit the nail on the head; this conflict arose because we did not
> have a version policy in place earlier.  An expectation was generated
> that NumPy 2.0 would co-incide with a thorough review of the API (an
> exercise I hope we complete in the next year or two).
> We have a simple decision to make: do we renege on the promise of an
> API review for 2.0, or do we neglect the new versioning system?
> Since the new versioning system has not been in use all that long (the
> reason for this minor upset),

A policy has effect from the time of promulgation. It's not like you have to
wait a couple of years while it seasons.

> we don't stand much to lose by naming
> this next ABI-breaking release 1.5.
Except the accepted policy will be discarded and we will have to start all
over again. We can't change policy on a whim and still maintain that we
*have* a policy. We won't have one. But we can have long discussions...

"...this should be purely technical IMO. There are well established rules

Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20100211/53f41f28/attachment.html 

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list