On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:48 PM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Travis Oliphant <tra...@continuum.io> > wrote: > > > >> Let us note that that problem was due to Travis convincing David to > >> include the Datetime work in the release against David's own best > judgement. > >> The result was a delay of several months until Ralf could get up to > speed > >> and get 1.4.1 out. Let us also note that poly1d is actually not the > same as > >> Matlab poly1d. > >> > >> > >> This is not accurate, Charles. Please stop trying to dredge up old > >> history you don't know the full story about and are trying to create an > >> alternate reality about. It doesn't help anything and is quite > poisonous > >> to this mailing list. > > > > > > I didn't start the discussion of 1.4, nor did I raise the issue at the > time > > as I didn't think it would be productive. We moved forward. But in any > case, > > I asked David at the time why the datetime stuff got included. I'd > welcome > > your version if you care to offer it. That would be more useful than > > accusing me of creating an alternative reality and would clear the air. > > > > > > The datetime stuff got included because it is a very useful and important > > feature for multiple users. It still needed work, but it was in a state > > where it could be tried. It did require breaking ABI compatibility in > the > > state it was in. My approach was to break ABI compatibility and move > > forward (there were other things we could do at the time that are still > > needed in the code base that will break ABI compatibility in the future). > > David didn't want to break ABI compatibility and so tried to satisfy two > > competing desires in a way that did not ultimately work. These things > > happen. We all get to share responsibility for the outcome. > > I think Chuck alludes to the fact that I was rather reserved about > merging datetime before *anyone* knew about breaking the ABI. I don't > feel responsible for this issue (except I maybe should have pushed > more strongly about datetime being included), but I am also not > interested in making a big deal out of it, certainly not two years > after the fact. I am merely point this out so that you realize that > you may both have a different view that could be seen as valid > depending on what you are willing to highlight. > > I suggest that Chuck and you take this off-list, > > David > Or, we could raise funds for NumFOCUS by selling tickets for a brawl between the two at SciPy2012... I kid, I kid! Ben Root
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
