>On Wed Sep 12 19:47:39 CEST 2012, Donald Stufft wrote: > >On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Erik Bray wrote: >> That said, this doesn't match my workflow at all. After releasing >> "1.0" the next version is going to be "1.1", and any development >> pre-release will be "1.1.devX". "1.1a" might not ever even exist. I >> think others brought up this critique at the time PEP 386 was being >> discussed, but then nothing was ever done about it >_> > > Yea, this concerned me because 1.1.devX < 1.1a1 < 1.1b1 < 1.1c1 < 1.1 > is how i've seen it used in the wild. Looks like most everyone i've seen > using it so far has been doing it wrong. Don't think ive seen a single > person do it right.
Hi, just yesterday i got bitten by this issue. FYI: # verlib "pep386" (from https://bitbucket.org/tarek/distutilsversion) >>> from verlib import NormalizedVersion as V >>> V("0.2a1") < V("0.2.dev0") < V("0.2") True Also there is a bug in that version of verlib because it contradicts pep386 here: >>> V("0.2rc1") < V("0.2") False # setuptools ¿? >>> from pkg_resources import parse_version as V >>> V("0.2.dev0") < V("0.2a1") < V("0.2") True # distutils >>> distutils.version.LooseVersion("0.2.dev0") < >>> distutils.version.LooseVersion("0.2") False # O_O cheers, SAn PD: i wasn't subcribed to the list, sorry if this mail breaks the "thread". _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
