Hi, On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:19 AM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Charles R Harris >> <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Now that 1.7 is nearing release, it's time to look forward to the 1.8 >>> release. I'd like us to get back to the twice yearly schedule that we tried >>> to maintain through the 1.3 - 1.6 releases, so I propose a June release as a >>> goal. Call it the Spring Cleaning release. As to content, I'd like to see >>> the following. >>> >>> Removal of Python 2.4-2.5 support. >>> Removal of SCons support. >>> The index work consolidated. >>> Initial stab at removing the need for 2to3. See Pauli's PR for scipy. >>> Miscellaneous enhancements and fixes. >> >> I'd actually like to propose a faster release cycle than this, even. >> Perhaps 3 months between releases; 2 months from release n to the >> first beta of n+1? >> >> The consequences would be: >> * Changes get out to users faster. >> * Each release is smaller, so it's easier for downstream projects to >> adjust to each release -- instead of having this giant pile of changes >> to work through all at once every 6-12 months >> * End-users are less scared of updating, because the changes aren't so >> overwhelming, so they end up actually testing (and getting to take >> advantage of) the new stuff more. >> * We get feedback more quickly, so we can fix up whatever we break >> while we still know what we did. >> * And for larger changes, if we release them incrementally, we can get >> feedback before we've gone miles down the wrong path. >> * Releases come out on time more often -- sort of paradoxical, but >> with small, frequent releases, beta cycles go smoother, and it's >> easier to say "don't worry, I'll get it ready for next time", or >> "right, that patch was less done than we thought, let's take it out >> for now" (also this is much easier if we don't have another years >> worth of changes committed on top of the patch!). >> * If your schedule does slip, then you still end up with a <6 month >> release cycle. >> >> 1.6.x was branched from master in March 2011 and released in May 2011. >> 1.7.x was branched from master in July 2012 and still isn't out. But >> at least we've finally found and fixed the second to last bug! >> >> Wouldn't it be nice to have a 2-4 week beta cycle that only found >> trivial and expected problems? We *already* have 6 months worth of >> feature work in master that won't be in the *next* release. >> >> Note 1: if we do do this, then we'll also want to rethink the >> deprecation cycle a bit -- right now we've sort of vaguely been saying >> "well, we'll deprecate it in release n and take it out in n+1. >> Whenever that is". 3 months definitely isn't long enough for a >> deprecation period, so if we do do this then we'll want to deprecate >> things for multiple releases before actually removing them. Details to >> be determined. >> >> Note 2: in this kind of release schedule, you definitely don't want to >> say "here are the features that will be in the next release!", because >> then you end up slipping and sliding all over the place. Instead you >> say "here are some things that I want to work on next, and we'll see >> which release they end up in". Since we're already following the rule >> that nothing goes into master until it's done and tested and ready for >> release anyway, this doesn't really change much. >> >> Thoughts? > > Hey, my time to have a time-machine: > http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2008-May/033754.html > > I still think it is a good idea :)
I guess it is the release manager who has by far the largest say in this. Who will that be for the next year or so? Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
