On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Charles R Harris
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Travis Oliphant
>> On Feb 8, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Jarrod Millman
>>> 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
>> in conflicts that need to be resolved. How should we go about it? Does
>> numpy steering council (name?) have a role here.
>> It seems like consensus has been reached on making 1.4.1 an ABI
>> The remaining question is what to call the next release of NumPy 1.5 or
>> I would prefer to call it 1.5 because 2.0 "sounds" like it's
>> different from a use-level than 1.4, but it won't be. While it is a
>> to update all your packages, we just make clear that with NumPy 1.5 you
>> to re-compile extensions built with it. Yes, that is a break with what
>> thought would be the pattern used at SciPy 2008, but it has been many
>> since an ABI break has occurred, and I wouldn't mind updating the
>> I don't really like the idea of tying the version number to the ABI
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
> 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).
Oops, make that b). I want it to be called 2.0.0