[Benoît Bryon, 2012-06-29] > Le 29/06/2012 12:50, Piotr Ozarowski a écrit : > >[Benoît Bryon, 2012-06-29] > >>Le 28/06/2012 14:15, Piotr Ozarowski a écrit : > >>>[Benoît Bryon, 2012-06-27] > >>>>http://hg.python.org/peps/file/52767ab7e140/pep-0423.txt > >>>I think PEP 386 (about versions) should be mentioned in "Relationship > >>>with other PEPs" section. > >>Why? Right now, I can't see the relationship between > >>projects/packages/modules names and versions. > >The PEP name is "Naming conventions and recipes related to packaging" > >and version numbers are related to packaging (and naming) for sure. > Ok. Maybe the title of the PEP is not clear. > It is related to naming conventions only, and only in > packaging (i.e. projects, and distributed packages or > modules, not variables, function or class names). > > Would "naming conventions related to packaging" be better? > > > >How about PEP 396 (Module Version Numbers)? > How are version numbers related to naming?
OK, I admit I shamelessly wanted to promote these two PEPs in as many places as possible ;-) "The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from." and there are way too many Python versioning conventions (and places where these versions are stored) > >I just thought "foo.ext.bar" is a nice convention worth mentioning > >(next to, not instead of "contrib" which is more general than "ext") > > I agree that "foo.ext.bar" seems nice... but it uses 3 > namespace levels. It breaks the "avoid deep nesting" nevermind then, it was just a suggestion. I feel strongly against the py/python/lib/bindings/etc. prefix/suffix issue, though (but will not bother you about it anymore) -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645 _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
