On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Ondřej Čertík <ondrej.cer...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:35 PM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík <ondrej.cer...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress "We have to >>> think about the implications of our changes on existing users." and >>> also that little changes (with the best intentions!) that however mean >>> either a breakage or confusion for users (due to historical reasons) >>> should be avoided if possible. And I very strongly feel the same way. >>> And I think that most people on this list do as well. >> >> I think Travis is more concerned about API than ABI changes (in that >> example for 1.4, the ABI breakage was caused by a change that was >> pushed by Travis IIRC). >> >> The relative importance of API vs ABI is a tough one: I think ABI >> breakage is as bad as API breakage (but matter in different >> circumstances), but it is hard to improve the situation around our ABI >> without changing the API (especially everything around macros and >> publicly accessible structures). Changing this is politically >> difficult because nobody will upgrade to a new numpy with a different >> API just because it is cleaner, but without a cleaner API, it will be >> difficult to implement quite a few improvements. The situation is not >> that different form python 3, which has seen a poor adoption, and only >> starts having interesting feature on its own now. >> >> As for more concrete actions: I believe Wes McKinney has a >> comprehensive suite with multiple versions of numpy/pandas, I can't >> seem to find where that was mentioned, though. This would be a good >> starting point to check ABI matters (say pandas, mpl, scipy on top of >> multiple numpy). > > I will try to check as many packages as I can to see what actual problems > arise. I have created an issue for it: > > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/319 > > Feel free to add more packages that you feel are important. I will try to > check > at least the ones that are in the issue, and more if I have time. I will > close the issue once the upgrade path is clearly documented in the release > for every thing that breaks.
I believe the basis can be 1.4.1 against which we build different packages, and then test each new version. There are also tools to check ABI compatibility (e.g. http://ispras.linuxbase.org/index.php/ABI_compliance_checker), but I have never used them. Being able to tell when a version of numpy breaks ABI would already be a good improvement. David _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
