On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30 January 2013 12:32, Vinay Sajip <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm not sure I understand this point. Shouldn't that default be >> "pkg_resources", >> given that all the existing distributions on PyPI will work with that scheme >> and >> not have the Version-Scheme present in their metadata? > > I assumed that the idea is that if you upgrade your metadata to 1.3, > you are expected to switch to the new version scheme unless you > explicitly state that you're opting out of that part of the standard.
Correct. The desire is still to migrate to a more formal versioning scheme, hence PEP 386 by default if no Version-Scheme is specified. However, I don't want "but what if PEP 386 doesn't handle my pre/post/whatever release naming correctly" to be a potential blocker for migration the way it is with v1.2 of the metadata spec. The "Version-Scheme: pkg_resources" escape hatch will hopefully be enough to decouple the "provide v1.3 metadata" decision from the "use PEP 386 compatible version numbering" decision and thus lower the barrier to adoption for the *other* metadata features in the new versions (like consistent UTF-8 encoding, description-as-payload, Obsoleted-By, optional components/dependencies and the metadata extension mechanism, as well as those originally added in v1.2, such as distribution level dependencies, additional URLs and the environment marker concept). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
