[Cython] Cython 0.11.1 alpha

[Robert Bradshaw]

On Apr 3, 2009, at 3:24 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:

> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2009, at 2:39 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> At least for 0.11, there was also a strong relation between time  
> elapsed
> and size of cleanups that needed major testing and consolidation.  
> So the
> above doesn't /really/ reflect our current policy.

Hopefully with many smaller releases this will become less of an  
issue :)

> For the same reason, cython-unstable should become a major 0.xy  
> release.
> It changes too many things (not break, just change) to just become  
> a minor
> release.
>
>
>>> 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.
>
> +1, even without the "major testing" bit. Substantial code changes  
> do not
> belong into a minor release.
>
>
>> 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).
>
> That would rather speak for not making major semantic changes  
> before 0.12.
> Still, I do consider the loop semantic fixes real bug fixes. The only
> reason to go to 0.12 right away would be to say "sorry, 0.11 was a
> mistake, it's dead now, please upgrade". I don't think that's true.


There's a lot of good stuff in 0.11.1, but nothing big that I feel  
warrants a "full version" upgrade. Also, it will be good to push out  
stuff like the cdivision directives and warnings.

- Robert