On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Chris Withers <ch...@simplistix.co.uk> wrote: > Tarek Ziadé wrote: >> >> Then, the day PEP 386 is accepted, we turn "python_version" into a >> Version() >> object and we introduce '>', '<' and al. > > What's stopping PEP 386 being accepted? > Seems like it'd be a good idea to get it out of the way first...
The last round (last summer) was not in favor of having post/dev markers in the version scheme (these are required by some developers), so PEP 345 and PEP 386 where sleeping a bit. But I have added a note in PEP 386 saying that following this scheme was not mandatory (as PEP 345 mentions), and these markers don't hurt people that want lighter schemes, so.. So I've sent a new mail to RFC PEP 345 + PEP 386, and I am cc'ing Paul, who was IIRC, not in favor of the PEP as it stands now. Tarek _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
