[Cython] Cython 0.11.1 alpha

[Robert Bradshaw]

On Apr 3, 2009, at 2:39 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:

> Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>> Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>>> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>>> In the interest of releasing sooner rather than later, a new  
>>>>> alpha is
>>>>> up at
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cython.org/Cython-0.11.1.alpha.tar.gz
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a good patch by Lisandro that does Python <-> c int
>>>>> converstion that I'd like to see make it in, and Sage doesn't yet
>>>>> compile (mostly due to the "defined before used" bug catching-- 
>>>>> should
>>>>> this be merely a warning before the next major release?), but  
>>>>> at this
>>>> +1
>>> Though as the for loop semantics also changed, one could also  
>>> argue to
>>> keep it as it is but name it 0.12.
>>
>> Although, if everyone who needs the bug fixes for 0.11 has to  
>> switch to
>> 0.12 anyway, what good is it to not name it 0.11.1? :)
>
> The question is why we have a major/minor naming scheme at all. It  
> could be
>
> a) Depending on how much time's elapsed since the last major. That's
> roughly our current policy :-)

Well, there's a strong correlation between time elapsed and new  
features.

> b) Substantial new features means new major. That's one guildeline,
> which speaks for naming this one 0.11.1.
>
> c) New major when backwards compatability is broken in any way. That's
> another, conflicting guideline, which speaks for naming this one 0.12.
>
> Myself I'm -1 on a) and +0 on b) and c).

I'm primarily guided by (b), where "substantial new features" may  
include internal re-factoring that requires lots of testing. I think  
(c) is important too, but am not a stickler being pedantically strict  
on this. It should be very safe to do a 0.x.y upgrade, no promises  
that 0.y won't force you to change your code (for the better, though  
it should be avoided--hopefully just making people remove bad/ 
ambiguous/abusive code, or stuff like cdivision).

- Robert