Sounds like a :: and a "If not specified, pep386 should be assumed" are the only things missing from this PEP.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Donald Stufft <donald.stu...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > > 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. > > Their is only one minor difference that I can find between how PEP386 > handles > versions and how pkg_resources does. IMO We should moidfy PEP386 to > match what pkg_resources did for that case and then as far as I can tell > PEP386 will be a strict subset of pkg_resources. > > FWIW anyways > > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig > >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
