On Thursday,2009-10-08, at 15:41 , Ian Bicking wrote:
So after creating, say, version 0.3.1, I always mark a package as
0.3.2dev. But this is annoying, you might never create a version
0.3.2 (e.g., 0.4 might be the next level).
So, it would be better to use something like 0.3.1~dev. What is
considered best practice for this? Ideally something that works
with both Setuptools and the upcoming Distribute version spec.
What we do in the Tahoe-LAFS project is we don't count down to a
future version, we only count up from a past version. This is also
what Twisted does (no coincidence -- we probably got the idea from
them).
So the most recent release of Tahoe-LAFS was 1.5.0. The next time we
committed a patch to our darcs repository, it automatically got the
version number 1.5.0-r4040. (The automation to do this is our own
implementation -- darcsver [1], but it produces the same kind of
output as setuptools's builtin svn integration and Twisted's own svn
integration does.)
The current snapshot build of Tahoe-LAFS is numbered 1.5.0-r4073, and
eventually we will have one numbered something like 1.5.0-r4123, and
then the very next version will be 1.6.0. The next version after
that will be 1.6.0-r4125.
This means that we don't have version numbers with things like "beta"
in their name. The most recent time that we had a beta was, I think,
Tahoe-LAFS 1.4.1-r4021. We just announced on our mailing list "Hey
everybody, we're ready to make a new release! Please try the current
version (1.4.1-r4021) and tell us if it works for you!".
Regards,
Zooko
[1] http://pypi.python.org/pypi/darcsver
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
