On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Tarek Ziadé <ta...@ziade.org> wrote: > On 9/13/12 3:21 AM, SAn wrote: >>> >>> 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) > > you should use the one at > http://hg.python.org/distutils2/file/0291648eb2b2/distutils2/version.py > > for all your tests, and file bugs at bugs.python.org > > verlib is an old version and is properly a bit different >
Thanks Tarek. The code at distutils2 doesn't have that bug :) Cheers, SAn _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
