tag 1.0?

[stevengj]

Pre-1.0 versions are painful for packages to declare compatibility with, since every minor version bump is assumed to be breaking.

Are there any breaking changes planned on the horizon that I'm forgetting about, or should we go ahead and tag 1.0?

cc @jmkuhn, @quinnj

[jmkuhn]

I do plan to change sigexp() and export it, but since it isn't currently exported or documented I wouldn't consider this a breaking change.

Ideally I would like to have ARM working before tagging 1.0 but I can't promise this quickly. I don't have any objection to tagging 1.0.

[stevengj]

Since both of those changes are non-breaking, they can be made in 1.x, so they don't need to hold up a 1.0 release.

However, it wouldn't hurt to change the sigexp API first to the version that we want to export eventually.

[jmkuhn]

I'll add sigexp, randn, and randexp so we won't have to immediately tag 1.1 for these new features. Everything else I have planned is a bug fix.

[stevengj]

I tagged 1.0 (JuliaRegistries/General#16483) now that we have sigexp, since this changed the API (albeit the old one was internal). Tagging 1.1 for randn etcetera is not a problem.