On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Donald Stufft <donald.stu...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not against the change in particular though. The reference impl in > distutils2 > protected against really high version numbers, I'm not sure what the logic > behind > that was except for protecting against "dates" as a version number. Might be > there > was a particular case they were making sure was rational. Only mentioning > here > because major only project numbers can get big which reminded me!
So long as the numeric component is monotonically increasing, there is no problem with a date-based versioning scheme under PEP 386 or PEP 426. If distutils2 was ruling them out, it was applying an additional constraint not present in the spec. (Date based versioning is actually one of the use cases I intended to include in the next PEP draft - ".postN" releases are quite handy for that use case, as they make it easy to do hotfix releases while still retaining a purely date-based scheme for the numeric component) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
