On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > The version scheme is not going to change. The point of PEP 386 was, > to a very large extent, to define a scheme that *existing PyPI > projects* either already comply with, or will require only minor > cosmetic changes to comply with (such as inserting an extra period to > turn X.YdevN into X.Y.devN). [....] > We already know the most likely outcome of such an effort: people will simply > stick > with v1.1 of the metadata scheme and continuing to use the existing > packaging tools, as migrating to the new ones would require a whole > lot pointless busywork to redesign their build processes and > workflows. This is in fact the killer argument here, i.e. even though I may not like all that much some of the supported proposed scheme, the practicality of adopting and supporting existing practices trumps IMHO all other arguments. So any objections I brought here about the version schemes are addressed by your answers :) I particularly like the wording you have in the PEP where you explicitly support but do not encourage more byzantine version schemes.
-- Philippe Ombredanne +1 650 799 0949 | pombreda...@nexb.com DejaCode Enterprise at http://www.dejacode.com nexB Inc. at http://www.nexb.com _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
