On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:47 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> Hello,
>
> PEP 386 seem to be ready, and I would like to push if for feedback at
> python-dev, just before PEP 345 is pushed.
>
> My only concern is now to make sure the PEP motivations and explanations are
> crystal clear.
>
> Anyone see any problem ? or have any concern with this PEP ?
I think the motivation and explanations are clear.
There are, however, some issues that should be addressed before it's accepted
as "final."
1> There seems to be a typo on line 29 of verlib.py where it says 'f' <
'b', shouldn't that be 'b' < 'f' ?
2> The explanation for "suggest_rational_version" is stubbed out in the
README.txt file:
XXX explain here suggest_rational_version
it should be documented what we expect it to do and that leads into...
3> test_suggest_rational_version needs a more comprehensive test suite
(like all the version numbers from PyPi). Right now it only has 11 cases and
they're all pretty mild though the doc asserts success rates on PyPi that are
much higher. This should be done so that we can insure that the algorithm
stays stable (and hopefully improves) in future versions. (I will create this
expanded test using PyPi data, if requested).
4> The [#requrires] reference is missing from the README.txt file
5> There is no cross reference to any other non-python project using this
scheme. There is a note that "During Pycon, members of the Python, Ubuntu and
Fedora community worked on a version standard that would be acceptable for
everyone" but there is no evidence that anyone else has agreed to this
standard and, particularly, to this reference implementation.
S
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
