Tarek Ziadé wrote:
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.
I'm sure I can't be the only person suffering from PEP overload when it
comes to packaging. Any chance we could at least get dev/post markers in
PEP386 and get it done and out of the way?
I have a feeling that PEP345 and PEP390 along with David's alternative
proposal are all related in such a way that the best thing ot do is
bottom out the latter two first, but they all seem to depend (whether or
not they want to admit it ;-) ) on PEP 386...
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
