On 12 May 2016 at 10:07, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > ...Given how complicated this is ending up being, I'm sorta inclined > to just drop semantics-version. It's only in there as a "hey why not > it doesn't hurt" thing. I can't imagine any situation in which we'd > actually bump the semantics version. If we need to make some > incompatible change we'll actually do it by adding a [build-system-2] > or something, and specify that [build-system] and [build-system-2] are > both allowed in the same file, and if both are present then new tools > should ignore [build-system] -- way smoother and backwards-compatible.
That does seem like a simpler solution. I'd like to think that most changes we'd make to the file format could be done in a backward-compatible manner - new values that default appropriately, detectable changes to existing values (like a single string value becomes a list, just allow a string and treat it as a 1-element list). If we have to make breaking changes, using a new name (either at the section level like you suggest, or at the individual item level) seems perfectly acceptable. And if we don't need semantics-version in the [package] section, we can promote [build-system] to top level and just have 2 top level items, [build-system] and [tools]. Seems clean and manageable to me. Paul _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
